Psychology For Language Learner - Mercer Et Al - 2012

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.
com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31
10.1057/9781137032829 - Psychology for Language Learning, Edited by Sarah Mercer, Stephen

Ryan and Marion Williams
Psychology for Language Learning
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31
10.1057/9781137032829 - Psychology for Language Learning, Edited by Sarah Mercer, Stephen Ryan and Marion Williams
Also by Sarah Mercer
TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF LANGUAGE LEARNER SELF-CONCEPT
Also by Marion Williams

PSYCHOLOGY FOR LANGUAGE TEACHERS: A Social Constructivist Approach
(co-authored)
Psychology for Language
Learning
Insights from Research,
Theory and Practice

Edited by
Sarah Mercer
University of Graz, Austria
Stephen Ryan
Senshu University, Japan
and
Marion Williams
University of Exeter, UK
Selection and editorial matter © Sarah Mercer, Stephen Ryan and Marion
Williams 2012
Individual chapters © their respective authors 2012
Foreword © Zoltán Dörnyei 2012
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,

Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this
work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2012 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978–0–230–30114–6 hardback
ISBN 978–0–230–30115–3 paperback
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne
To the memory of Richard Pemberton, a pioneer in the field
of learner autonomy in language education.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
List of Figures and Tables ix
Foreword x

Zoltán Dörnyei
Notes on Contributors xii
1 Introduction 1
Sarah Mercer, Stephen Ryan, and Marion Williams
2 Self-concept: Situating the Self 10

Sarah Mercer
3 Identity: The Situated Construction of Identity and

Positionality in Multilingual Classrooms 26
Naoko Morita
4 Personality: Personality Traits as Independent and

Dependent Variables 42
Jean-Marc Dewaele
5 Motivation: L2 Learning as a Special Case? 58

Ema Ushioda
6 Implicit Theories: Language Learning Mindsets 74

Stephen Ryan and Sarah Mercer
7 Attribution: Looking Back and Ahead at the ‘Why’ Theory 90

Pei-Hsuan (Peggy) Hsieh
8 Affect: The Role of Language Anxiety and Other Emotions

in Language Learning 103
Peter MacIntyre and Tammy Gregersen
9 Willingness to Communicate: Momentary Volition that

Results in L2 Behaviour 119
Tomoko Yashima
vii
viii Contents
10 Strategies: The Interface of Styles, Strategies, and

Motivation on Tasks 136
Andrew D. Cohen
11 Learning Styles: Traversing the Quagmire 151

Carol Griffiths
12 Metacognition: Awareness of Language Learning 169

Neil J Anderson

13 Goal Orientations: Three Perspectives on Motivation Goal
Orientations 188
Lindy Woodrow
14 Self-directed Learning: Concepts, Practice, and a Novel

Research Methodology 203
Richard Pemberton and Lucy Cooker
15 Group Dynamics: Collaborative Agency in Present

Communities of Imagination 220
Tim Murphey, Joseph Falout, Yoshifumi Fukada,
and Tetsuya Fukuda
16 Conclusion: Final Remarks 239

Glossary 248
Author Index 256
Subject Index 262
Figures and Tables
Figures

8.1 Changes in ratings of WTC (per second) over eight tasks 109
9.1 Heuristic model of variables influencing L2 WTC 122
13.1 Chart of performance-avoid goal orientations and
ethnicity of learners 197
14.1 Q methodology sorting grid 212
14.2 A participant sorting (rank ordering) the statements
onto the grid pattern 213
15.1 Semester start measurements 228
15.2 Semester end measurements 229
15.3 Three overlapping mind times situated in emerging
contexts 230
Tables
12.1 Self-assessment instructions for the oral interview 177

12.2 Difference in integrated skills test: Actual scores versus
estimated scores 178
12.3 Difference in oral skills test: Actual scores versus
estimated scores 179
13.1 Examples of items used to measure goal orientations 195
13.2 Numbers, means, and standard deviations for goal
orientations 196
13.3 Correlations between goal orientations and oral
performance 197
ix
Foreword
Zoltán Dörnyei
The main theme underlying this book is the conviction shared by all
the contributors that language learning cannot be reduced to a process

of input and intake of linguistic information. While there is clearly a
well-definable linguistic code as the outcome of the language acqui-
sition enterprise, the process of learning is a holistic one, affecting
and drawing on the whole range of the learner’s personality features,
mindsets, and mental capabilities. The selection of chapters in this vol-
ume offers an up-to-date and in-depth description of the main facets
of this learner–learning interface.
Having written a book about the same topic not that long ago (The
psychology of the language learner, 2005), the interesting question for me
was to see how the field has moved forward since I prepared my sum-
mary (which, of course, is a polite way of saying that I was keen to check
whether these guys really had anything new to say . . . ). What struck me
first was the list of contributors; while a single-author book can often
provide a more coherent narrative than an edited volume, the latter
has the advantage of potentially offering focused specialist insights, and
this volume is a prime example of this. The editors have successfully
‘netted’ some of the foremost and most active researchers in the field to
contribute chapters in their specialization areas. I can well imagine how
much effort organizing this collaborative work must have taken on their
part, but the result is certainly very impressive!
Regarding the content, outstanding scholars are expected to generate
rich substance and this is indeed the case in this volume. The chapters
go beyond offering standard reviews of the relevant literatures; while
they do contain succinct summaries of the evolution of the topics in
question, they also consciously highlight the latest concerns, deliber-
ations, dilemmas, and crossroads. In this sense, the book can be used
as a reference book of the ‘all-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about . . . ’ type,
which, of course, raises the question: know about what? We must real-
ize that this is not a comprehensive summary of all the psychological
aspects of the second language acquisition (SLA) process as it does not
cover psycholinguistic and neurobiological issues. This restriction was
intentional in order to create sufficient coherence within the volume:
as the editors state right at the beginning, their focus was on the main
Foreword xi
psychological constructs typically addressed by educational psychology,

centring on the learner as the primary agent of the acquisition process.
Within this domain, however, the collection of studies in the volume
aims for comprehensiveness, and readers will obtain a detailed and
rounded picture, with no obvious omissions. This is an invaluable fea-
ture of any work in an age when it is becoming increasingly difficult to
keep abreast of any research area.
In sum, I wholeheartedly recommend this book as an excellent

overview of a complex but intriguing research domain. Anybody inter-
ested in the fundamental question of why some learners master a foreign
language faster and more easily than others will find a solid theoretical
basis with lots of practical implications in this ambitious volume. It is
a must for the bookshelves of applied linguists and language teaching
specialists alike.
Notes on Contributors

Neil J Anderson is Professor of Linguistics and English Language
at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA. His research inter-
ests include metacognition, language learner strategies, learner self-
assessment, second language reading, motivation in language teaching
and learning, and ELT leadership development. Professor Anderson is
the author or co-editor of several teacher education texts including:
Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies and Practical English
language teaching: Reading.
Andrew D. Cohen is a professor in phased retirement in the Program

in Second Language Studies, University of Minnesota, USA. His fields
of special interest include language learner strategies, second language
pragmatics, and language assessment. He is co-editor of Language learner
strategies: 30 years of research and practice, co-author of Teaching and learn-
ing pragmatics: Where language and culture meet, and author of Strategies
in learning and using a second language.
Lucy Cooker teaches at the University of Nottingham, UK. Her research

interests are in language learner autonomy, self-access language learn-
ing and learner identities, and she has a developing interest in research
methods. She is co-editor of The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural
approaches to autonomy, agency and identity.
Jean-Marc Dewaele is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Multilin-

gualism at Birkbeck, University of London, UK. He is interested in
individual differences in second and additional language acquisition
and multilingualism. He wrote the book Emotions in multiple languages.
Joseph Falout is an assistant professor at Nihon University, Japan. His

research interests include motivational variables of teachers and learners
in EFL sociocultural contexts. He edits for OnCUE Journal and Asian EFL
Journal.
xii
Notes on Contributors xiii
Yoshifumi Fukada teaches at the International Christian University,

Japan. His research interests include L2 learners’ and users’ dynamic
identities, their agency in their English learning and social interactions
(in and out of class), and their use of English as a Lingua Franca in
international communities.
Tetsuya Fukuda is a professor at Yamano College, Japan. He is inter-

ested in the sociocultural and political aspects of language learning

in Japan, especially factors that motivate students to learn and use
English, and how students perceive varieties of English in and out of the
classroom.
Tammy Gregersen is Professor of TESOL at the University of Northern

Iowa, USA. Her research interests target second and foreign language
classroom applications (including non-verbal communication) when
considering individual differences, such as anxiety, motivation, and
strategy use.
Carol Griffiths is currently working as a teacher trainer at Yeditepe Uni-

versity in Istanbul, Turkey, having previously worked in New Zealand,
Indonesia, Japan, China, North Korea, and the UK. Her main research
interests centre on language learning strategies. She is editor of the book
Lessons from good language learners.
Pei-Hsuan (Peggy) Hsieh is an education specialist at the Univer-

sity of Texas Medical School, Houston, USA. Her research interests
include learner motivation – specifically, learners’ self-efficacy for for-
eign language learning, and attributions for academic performances.
Other areas of interest include teaching effectiveness and learning
strategies.
Peter MacIntyre is Professor of Psychology at Cape Breton University,

Canada. His research interests centre on the role of affective vari-
ables in communication, including ways in which anxiety, motivation,
and willingness to communicate influence both native and second
language use.
Sarah Mercer is a lecturer at the University of Graz, Austria. Her research

interests include all aspects of language learner psychology – in par-
ticular affect, beliefs, mindsets, and the self. Recently she has become
especially interested in complexity perspectives on these areas. She is
xiv Notes on Contributors
the author of the book Towards an understanding of language learner

self-concept.
Naoko Morita is a lecturer at Simon Fraser University, Canada. Her

research interests include sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives
on identity and language learning, academic discourse socialization in
multilingual educational contexts, and heritage language education and
maintenance.

Tim Murphey is a professor at Kanda University of International
Studies, Japan. His research interests include transdisciplinary under-
standings of agency, identity, community, motivation, and learning. He
is co-author of Group dynamics in the language classroom and the author
of Teaching one to one and Language hungry!
Richard Pemberton was an associate professor in the School of Educa-

tion at the University of Nottingham, UK, until ill health forced him to
withdraw from work in December 2011. He taught on the MA TESOL
programme and supervised PhD students, and his research interests
included self-directed language learning and the development of criti-
cality. With his customary generosity of spirit, he remained committed
to seeing his chapter through to completion. Sadly, Richard died on
19 January 2012 at the age of 54.
Stephen Ryan is a professor in the School of Economics at Senshu

University, Japan. He is interested in all aspects of language learning
psychology, but especially issues of learner motivation and identity
connected to the role of English as a language of globalization.
Ema Ushioda is Associate Professor in ELT and Applied Linguistics

at the University of Warwick, UK, where she jointly coordinates the
MA ELT programmes. Her main research interests are language learn-
ing motivation, autonomy, sociocultural theory, and teacher develop-
ment. Recent publications (with Zoltán Dörnyei) include Teaching and
researching motivation (2nd ed.) and Motivation, language identity and the
L2 self.
Marion Williams was formerly Reader in Applied Linguistics at the

University of Exeter, UK, where she coordinated the postgraduate pro-
grammes in TESOL. She is interested in all aspects of psychology in lan-
guage learning. Her research interests include motivation, attributions,
Notes on Contributors xv
and teacher education. She is the joint author of Psychology for language
teachers: A social constructivist approach, Thinking through the curriculum,
and Teaching young learners to think.
Lindy Woodrow is Senior Lecturer in TESOL at the University of

Sydney, Australia. Her research interests include language learning psy-
chology, especially motivation, self-efficacy, and anxiety. She is the
author of the book Adaptive second language learning: The case of EAP

students.
Tomoko Yashima is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Intercultural

Communication at Kansai University, Japan. Her research interests
include intercultural contact, acculturation, attitudes, motivation, and
affect in L2 learning. She is the author of the books published in
Japanese: Motivation and affect in foreign language communication and L2
communication and intercultural adaptation.
This page intentionally left blank
1
Introduction

What this book is about
This book aims to provide an overview of current theory and research

in the field of psychology in foreign language learning by bringing
together a range of psychological constructs in a single volume. Each
chapter focuses on a different psychological construct written by a spe-
cialist in the field. Each presents an outline of current thinking in the
area, drawing on insights from educational psychology, a summary of
research in the field, and an example of current research carried out by
the author(s). The book also attempts to draw together the interconnec-
tions between the different strands of research reviewed in the chapters
and in doing so to offer a picture of current thinking and directions for
further research in the field.
Why we compiled this book
The three editors have long shared a common interest in the application
of concepts from educational psychology to foreign language educa-
tion. We also share a basic belief that one of the most effective ways
to improve pedagogic practice is through a more complete understand-
ing of the thoughts, motives and emotions of learners. While research
in the field has been growing and provides a rich resource from which
pedagogy can draw, it was also apparent to us that there are many differ-
ent strands to the research, often moving in different directions without
linking to other psychological factors. As such, the field can seem some-
what fragmented. We therefore decided to bring together research on a
range of constructs and to provide a platform where we can consider
some of the common themes that emerge.
2 Introduction
When we began to contact potential contributors to invite them to

take part, we soon realized that our enthusiasm was shared by others.
Thus, the seeds of an idea quickly led to concrete work involving a
collection of distinguished scholars. In compiling this book, we were
aware of the need to be selective in our choice of constructs and the
impossibility of including all aspects of psychology. However, we have
tried to cover a broad base of core topics in the field as well as some
from educational psychology that have received less attention in applied

linguistics.
Who this book is for
This book is intended for those involved in different areas of psychology

in language learning, whether carrying out research or teaching aspects
of psychology. It is also aimed at others involved in applied linguistics
who would like an overview of current thinking and research in the
field of psychology in language learning. We have made every effort to
ensure that the chapters are accessible to those engaged in postgraduate
study, whether at doctoral or master’s level. Hence, we have explained
difficult concepts as they arise and provided a glossary of terminology.
In addition, each chapter concludes with suggestions for further reading
which we hope will assist readers in pursuing their own interests. Finally,
we hope that the implications for practice will be of interest to teachers
and teacher trainers in informing classroom pedagogy.
Language learning psychology: The story so far
To begin with, we would like to clarify how we use the term ‘psychology’
in this book. We take our understanding from educational psychology,
and see language learning psychology as concerned with the mental
experiences, processes, thoughts, feelings, motives, and behaviours of
individuals involved in language learning. Our perspective therefore
differs from psycho- and neurolinguistic approaches which empha-
size more cognitive processes and neurological dimensions of learning.
In order to set this book in context, we will consider briefly some of the
main developments in language learning psychology to date.
In trying to provide an overview of the history of the field, one is
immediately aware of the fragmented nature of work in the area and an
absence of any clearly identifiable, overarching body of language learn-
ing psychology research. Instead we mainly find a history of research
Sarah Mercer et al. 3
on learner individual differences, many of which have blossomed into

fields of their own, such as autonomy, motivation, or learning strategies.
Given that there is no obvious beginning to the story of psychology
in language learning, it is difficult to know where to start an account
of its historical development. In terms of individual psychological con-
structs, interest in learner-related variables began in earnest with the
good language learner studies (see Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco,
1978; Rubin, 1975; Stevick, 1989), in which the focus was on the char-

acteristics of the learner that were believed to lead to their success in
learning. In addition, the advent of communicative language teaching
and learner-centred approaches led to an interest in learners as active
agents in their own learning, and researchers turned their attention
rather more to learners’ needs, expectations, goals, motivation, and
beliefs. While good language learner studies have concentrated on a
range of learner characteristics, a main focus has been on language
learning styles and strategies (see Cohen & Macaro, 2007), as well as
motivation.
It is possible to argue that motivation has dominated individual dif-
ferences research in second language acquisition (SLA). Motivational
research itself has been influenced by certain theoretical frameworks,
most notably a social psychological approach, which stressed the ‘differ-
ent’ nature of language learning, an issue discussed by Ema Ushioda in
this book (Chapter 5). Using Gardner’s social psychological framework,
a large number of studies focusing on instrumental and integrative ori-
entations to language learning have been produced (see Masgoret &
Gardner, 2003). As a result, language learning motivational studies drew
less on the broad range of frameworks and perspectives used in educa-
tional psychology, preferring to concentrate on its own specific agenda,
and thus moved in a different direction from that taken by educational
psychology (see Williams & Burden, 1997, pp. 115–119.) However, as
Dewaele (2005, pp. 367–368) suggests, SLA could benefit from broad-
ening its horizons by incorporating work on “relevant psychological
variables not usually reported in the SLA literature.”
The growing number of research papers and specialized monographs
related to language learning psychology is testimony to an upsurge of
interest in the field. Recently there have been several influential papers
(e.g., Dewaele, 2005) which have called for more research in this area.
In a key book on the psychology of the language learner, Dörnyei
(2005, p. 110) concludes that there is a “changing climate in applied
linguistics characterized by an increasing openness to the inclusion of
psychological factors and processes into research paradigms.” Indeed, as
4 Introduction
Dörnyei (2009, p. xii) has argued, to disregard developments in psychol-

ogy would impede the development of SLA generally given its centrality
in the learning process. Perhaps the best way to look at the histori-
cal development of language learning psychology is to consider certain
landmark publications and how they chart the development of work
in this area. One early work explicitly connecting psychology and lan-
guage learning was McDonough’s (1981) Psychology in foreign language
teaching. This was a comprehensive attempt to link psychology with the-

ories of language learning while retaining a practical pedagogical focus.
In addition to considering more typical cognitive dimensions, such as
information processing and memory, McDonough also drew attention
to social psychological factors involved in learning and interacting in
a foreign language, as well as typical individual differences, such as
aptitude, strategies, personality and motivation. He concludes by stress-
ing that psychology has a key role to play in helping us to understand
language learning.
Of necessity, McDonough’s book was rooted in the prevailing
approaches to educational psychology of the time. A different per-
spective was provided by Williams and Burden (1997), in their book
Psychology for language teachers. This volume, written by an applied
linguist and an educational psychologist, examines developments in
educational psychology through a social constructivist lens. It focuses in
particular on the role of others in fostering learning, interaction, medi-
ation and the influence of contextual factors. The publication helped to
contribute towards a growing recognition of a broader range of psycho-
logical topics by introducing a number of lesser known concepts such
as Feuerstein’s theory of mediation, attribution theory, self-efficacy, and
the role of the environment. The authors were also some of the first to
take issue with individual differences studies, concluding: “What they
[individual differences studies] tell us about is groups of people and
average scores, rather than individuals. They can, therefore, give teach-
ers very little information about what to do with individual learners in
their classrooms” (p. 91).
A more theoretically oriented book is Dörnyei’s The psychology of the
language learner (2005). The book offers a comprehensive overview of
contemporary theorizations of individual differences, including several
lesser known constructs such as anxiety, willingness to communicate,
and self-esteem. It also challenges the validity of some of these estab-
lished concepts and the ways in which they have been theorized and
researched. It builds on the sociocultural perspectives encountered in
Williams and Burden (1997) by stressing the need for learner variables to
be considered with respect to situational parameters. Dörnyei also draws

attention to one of the problems facing researchers in this area in terms
of the need to acquire expertise in both linguistics and psychology, and
the dangers of creating over-simplistic models if the complexity of the
field is not sufficiently understood.
The final publication we consider here is Dörnyei’s (2009) The psy-
chology of second language acquisition. There are significant differences
between this and the preceding work. Dörnyei again problematizes the

issue of working at the interface of applied linguistics and psychology.
However, in this book his focus shifts to a consideration of the impli-
cations of cognitive and neuropsychological research for understanding
language acquisition processes. He highlights important insights being
gained as a result of the rapid and profound changes emerging from the
fields of psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, neuroscience, and general
cognitive sciences. Although highly significant, these neurological and
cognitive branches of psychology represent quite a distinct field which
differs in focus from social and educational psychology, which are our
main interest in this book. Nevertheless, the publication marks another
significant stage in the continuing shift in thinking on learner charac-
teristics towards more holistic perspectives that focus on contextualized
understandings of actual individual learners.
Currently, the field of language learning psychology is vibrant, and
we agree with Dörnyei (2009, p. xiii) that “the psychological aspects
will not go away but will take up an increasingly central position within
the study of foreign or second language.” Continuing the work which
began in many cases over 30 years ago, as we shall see, there is an
ongoing progression towards more holistic views of learners and their
psychology and a growing interest in investigating psychological factors
in combination to explore the ways in which these interlink. For these
reasons we hope that bringing together many of the constructs in one
volume will help readers to see their interconnections and appreciate
the broader picture of language learning psychology and its diversified
research methodologies. In the Conclusion (Chapter 16), we will pull
a number of the common threads together, discuss more fully current
developments and theoretical frameworks that are influencing the field,
and propose possible directions for the future.
What this book consists of
This book is organized into 16 chapters with 14 of them each focusing

on a key construct. Apart from this Introduction and the Conclusion,
6 Introduction
they all follow the same general pattern while allowing each author to
express their own individual perspective on the topic. Each begins with
an overview of the literature related to their construct and a summary
of research in the area. The authors then present an illustrative example
of their own recent research on the topic. Each chapter concludes with
implications for further research and for practice. To assist further study
in the area, each author has provided three annotated key texts for sug-
gested further reading. In addition, we have included a glossary at the

end of the book composed with the help of all the contributors.
Organization of this book
We have loosely organized this book around three key questions that
learners have about themselves and their learning. These questions can
have a significant impact on an individual’s achievement in learning a
language. Chapters 2–4 consider the question of how learners construct
their identities, or ‘Who am I?’
We begin with Sarah Mercer’s exploration (Chapter 2) of the nature of
self-concept. Based on longitudinal case study data, she illustrates how
the self can be conceptualized as situated not only in relation to exter-
nal contexts and other individuals, but also intra-personally in respect
to other aspects of the learner’s psychology, and temporally in relation
to the person’s past experiences, ongoing present, and future goals and
visions. Next (Chapter 3), Naoko Morita considers the situated con-
struction and negotiation of learner identities. She reports on a study
which examines the academic socialization and identity negotiation of
Japanese graduate students at a Canadian university and illustrates how
identities are constructed in a dynamic fashion. Finally in this section
(Chapter 4), Jean-Marc Dewaele looks at how psychologists have consid-
ered personality. He examines the research into the effects of personality
traits on SLA and considers the emerging research on the links between
SLA, multilingualism, and personality.
The next five chapters address the issue of how learners view their
learning of languages, a fundamental concern which affects the way
learners approach the task. In the first of these chapters (Chapter 5),
Ema Ushioda provides an overview of the most widely researched and
theoretically developed psychological variable in language learning,
motivation. She explores how L2 motivation theory has evolved in
relation to developments in mainstream motivational psychology, and
traces a shift in research focus from the motivation of the L2 learner to
the integration of L2 motivation within a person’s overall motivational
self-systems and contextual interactions. Next (Chapter 6), Stephen
Ryan and Sarah Mercer consider a key part of learners’ motivation,

language learning mindsets, which are deeply held systems of beliefs
that can profoundly affect our approaches to learning. The concept of
mindsets has attracted much interest in educational psychology but has
yet to receive significant attention in relation to language learning. They
consider both the possibilities offered by a greater understanding of
mindsets and also the challenge of adapting the construct to the par-
ticular requirements of the language learning context. A related concept

is that of attributions, which is concerned with what we see as the causes
of our perceived successes and failures in life. Pei-Hsuan (Peggy) Hsieh
provides an overview of research in this important area (Chapter 7) and
argues for the need to help learners to develop internal and controllable
attributions that facilitate learning.
Next (Chapter 8), Peter MacIntyre and Tammy Gregersen examine the
role of affect in SLA, with a focus on language anxiety, and they argue for
a more process-oriented approach to understanding how emotions can
influence second language learning and communication. They suggest
that there is a need to expand research into emotions by drawing on new
theories of positive emotions. Following this, and echoing a theme that
recurs throughout the book, Tomoko Yashima (Chapter 9) notes a rapid
shift in conceptualizations of and approaches to researching willingness
to communicate in a second language. This was originally regarded as an
individual personality trait and researched through quantitative instru-
ments, but she illustrates how scholars are now paying greater attention
to the situated nature of willingness to communicate and using more
qualitative approaches in their research.
The final group of chapters address the question of what learners do
to learn a language, or ‘What are the mental processes involved and
what are the steps that learners take in order to learn?’ In the first
(Chapter 10), Andrew D. Cohen considers case study work in which his
students study their own language learning and that of their peers. He
makes the case that it is beneficial to view learning strategies as lying at
the intersection of learning style preference, motivation, and L2 tasks.
Next (Chapter 11), Carol Griffiths examines the related concept of learn-
ing styles. She provides an overview of some of the taxonomies that
have been created and highlights the problem of generating such inven-
tories. She argues that there is no specific learning style that leads to
success, and instead a more flexible, individual, and context-sensitive
understanding is needed. Following this, Neil J Anderson (Chapter 12)
examines the psychological principles of metacognition and identifies
how second language educators can increase learners’ awareness of
their metacognitive strategies. He presents research findings to support
8 Introduction
the integration of metacognitive strategy awareness training within

a second language curriculum. This is followed by Lindy Woodrow’s
consideration of the issue of learners’ goals (Chapter 13). She exam-
ines different conceptualizations of goal orientations and indicates the
important role these play in second language learning motivation.
Richard Pemberton and Lucy Cooker (Chapter 14) continue by exam-
ining the notion of self-directed learning and how this relates to similar
educational concepts of learner autonomy and self-regulated learning.

They provide examples of how self-directed learning has been effectively
carried out in educational contexts around the world, and introduce
‘Q methodology’ as an innovative research method for investigating
the subjective ‘self’ in self-directed learning. Finally in this section,
Tim Murphey, Joseph Falout, Yoshifumi Fukada and Tetsuya Fukuda
(Chapter 15) look at the importance of understanding the psychology of
individuals when in groups. They argue that success and failure depend
on our sense of belonging to groups, the way we interact with others
within the group and the whole group dynamics. They identify some of
the difficulties in researching these group dynamics and offer what they
hope will be an accessible framework for researching these in language
classrooms.
In the Conclusion (Chapter 16), we, the editors, reflect on the main
themes emerging from the contributions. While there is much diver-
sity across the chapters in terms of theoretical and methodological
approaches, there is also evidence of a movement towards more con-
textualized, dynamic and complex understandings of psychological
constructs, as well as a tendency towards exploring the ways in which
the different constructs are interlinked.
Our task as editors has been at once stimulating, challenging, enjoy-
able, and fulfilling. It has been a privilege working with such an
exceptional team of people from different contexts. The experience of
doing so has broadened our own perspectives on and insights into lan-
guage learning psychology, and our hope is that these will be shared by
our readers.
References
Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.) (2007). Language learner strategies: 30 years of
research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimen-
sions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern
Language Journal, 89(3), 367–380.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Masgoret, A. -M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second
language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and his
associates. Language Learning, 53 (Suppl. 1), 167–210.
McDonough, S. (1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching. London: Allen &
Unwin.

Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language
learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly,
9(1), 41–51.
Stevick, E. (1989). Success with foreign languages: Seven who achieved it and what
worked for them. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2
Self-concept: Situating the Self
Sarah Mercer

Introduction
Self-concept is a powerful construct that lies at the centre of an

individual’s psychology connecting various dimensions such as moti-
vation, affective attitudes, motivation, goals, and strategic behaviours
(Denissen, Zarrett, & Eccles, 2007; Marsh, 2006). While this makes it
an exciting construct to study, self-concept poses a challenge for those
wishing to research it, given that there is “wide disagreement about how
to define the self, measure it, and study its development” (Brinthaupt &
Lipka, 1992, p. 1). In this chapter, I will attempt to make some sense
of the differing perspectives in the field and provide an overview of key
understandings about the construct. I will begin by establishing a defini-
tion and clarifying the relationship of self-concept to other self-related
constructs. Then I will look at some of the characteristics of self-concept,
focusing in particular on its potential dynamism and development,
and considering the ways in which the construct can be researched.
An example of research is then presented which seeks to consider in
what ways the English as a foreign language (EFL) self-concept can be
conceived of as a situated construct.
Background literature
Definitional concerns
Any discussion of research in the field must remain aware of the mul-
titude of possible definitions of self-concept emerging from the interest
of different disciplines and diverse theoretical perspectives. Although all
the terms share a common concern with the self, they differ with respect
to their focus and boundaries in ways that are important to understand.
10
Sarah Mercer 11
While I have chosen to conceptualize self-concept in a certain way, other

researchers may have used this and related terms differently, and readers
need to be aware of potentially conflicting understandings of terms.
As the words suggest, self-concept represents our ‘concept’ of our-
selves. It is everything we believe (rightly or wrongly) about ourselves
(Neisser, 1997, p. 3). However, it is not just a cognitive belief; it has an
affective dimension of how we feel about the person we believe our-
selves to be. It is a self-description “that includes an evaluation of com-

petence and the feelings of self-worth associated with the judgement in
question” (Pajares & Schunk, 2005, p. 105).
An important characteristic of self-concept is that it is multidimen-
sional. This means that we do not hold just one global self-concept
but we have multiple interrelated self-concepts in a range of domains.
In other words, I have a French self-concept, an academic writer self-
concept, a mathematics self-concept, an athletic self-concept, and so
on. Although these are distinct self-concepts, each connected to a spe-
cific domain, they are also interrelated with each other and should be
viewed as interconnected, integral parts of a global self-concept network
(Mercer, 2011a).
One of the problems associated with researching self-concept has
been separating it from other related terms. Two constructs frequently
confused with self-concept are self-efficacy and self-esteem. All three
constructs differ largely in terms of the degree of domain-specificity and
the relative importance of cognitive and evaluative self-beliefs involved
(cf. Valentine & DuBois, 2005, p. 55). Self-efficacy is the most cogni-
tive and domain-specific of the three constructs and refers to a person’s
expectation of their ability to perform a particular task in a specific
context (Bandura, 1997). Many researchers acknowledge that these very
specific beliefs are likely to contribute to the higher-order self-concept
and may be viewed as a constituent part of it. As Bong and Skaalvik
(2003, pp. 10–11) explain, self-efficacy “may be the most important
building block in one’s self-concept.” The most global and evaluative of
the self-constructs is self-esteem which refers to a person’s overall evalu-
ation of their worth or value as a person (Harter, 1999). An individual’s
overall self-esteem can be influenced by domain-specific self-concepts to
differing degrees, depending on the relative importance of the respective
domain for an individual.
Identity (see Morita, Chapter 3, this volume) is another construct that
is often used interchangeably with self-concept. The identity construct
differs from self-concept largely in terms of focus, although the two are
clearly interrelated. Identity is an individual’s sense of self in relation
12 Self-concept
to a particular social context or community of practice. Self-concept is

concerned more with the underlying psychological sense of self in a
particular domain, rather than with its specific interplay with a partic-
ular context. This is not to say that self-concept should be viewed as
detached and independent of context, as will be discussed below, but
rather it means that studies investigating either construct tend to have
a differing emphasis and focus (Mercer, 2011a, pp. 18–19). For exam-
ple, learner identities are learners’ sense of self as a language learner or

user in relation to a particular linguistic community or learning context,
whereas a learner’s self-concept refers to their general sense of com-
petence and related evaluative beliefs about themselves as a language
learner, not just in respect to a specific setting.
Clearly, all of these constructs can offer valuable insights into learner
psychology and behaviour; however, I have chosen to focus on self-
concept for three main reasons. First, it is sufficiently broadly defined to
capture a wider set of beliefs and feelings related to a language-learning
domain beyond just specific language tasks or skill areas. Second, it
represents an individual’s underlying domain-specific self-related beliefs
across a range of contexts, not just in relation to a single specific setting.
Finally, self-concept is not just a cognitive evaluation of ability, as self-
efficacy tends to be defined, but it also incorporates an affective dimen-
sion. For these reasons, it appeals to me as the most widely relevant
construct in a range of settings, although I acknowledge the interrelated
nature of all the various self-related constructs and the difficulties of
attempting to tease them apart for research purposes (Mercer, 2011a).
Dynamism and development

There is a considerable body of research in psychology investigating
various characteristics and interrelations of self-concept. As an edu-
cator, I am particularly concerned with understanding how learners
form their self-concepts and how these may change over time. There-
fore, this section will focus on considering the extent to which self-
concept is believed to be dynamic and what factors can influence its
development.
Essentially, self-concept has been found to include both dynamic ele-
ments as well as more stable elements; however, debate continues about
the nature of and reasons for these differently dynamic dimensions
of the construct. In their frequently cited paper on the ‘dynamic self-
concept’, Markus and Wurf (1987, p. 302) propose that differences in
the dynamism of self-concepts stems from the “centrality or impor-
tance” of beliefs involved. They explain that some beliefs are central
Sarah Mercer 13
to an individual’s overall sense of self, whereas others are less important

and more peripheral. They suggest that the core aspects of the self are
more resistant to change, whereas the less central self-beliefs are more
prone to fluctuation.
Another influential perspective on the dynamic nature of the self is
offered by those who focus on the dynamic nature of self-concept in
relation to various contexts. From this perspective, the focus is on the
fluidity of the self-concept as it varies, changes, and adapts across con-

texts and interactional settings (e.g., Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1998;
Onorato & Turner, 2004). Within this perspective, opinions differ as to
the extent to which any dimension of the self-concept can be viewed
as stable or whether there is only a continually dynamic self-emerging
from the interactions with particular contexts and individuals. Neverth-
eless, it is now generally accepted that self-concept should be viewed as
interrelated with sociocultural contexts and interpersonal interactions,
and as such is dynamic across these settings (Neisser & Jopling, 1997).
Accepting that self-concept is at least partially dynamic, it is of inter-
est to understand what other factors may influence the self-concept’s
development. Naturally, there are fundamental changes in the nature
and content of self-representations across the lifespan depending on the
person’s age and stage of cognitive development (Harter, 1999). A con-
siderable body of work has also examined the role of other demographic
factors, such as gender and ethnicity (Craven & Marsh, 2005; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2004). In addition, there has been growing interest in the influ-
ence of culture on understandings and expressions of self-concept, as
it appears that cultures may differ in how they conceptualize the self
and which characteristics are valued (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).
Of particular interest to educators are insights gained from Marsh’s
(1986) internal/external frame of reference model. This refers to the
frames of reference an individual uses to form their self-concept and
these may be situated primarily within the self (internal) or largely
outside of the self (external). In Marsh’s model, the internal frame of
reference refers to the internal comparisons learners make across their
self-concepts, for example, comparing their perceived competence in
maths and English and how this comparison can then affect each respec-
tive self-concept. The external frame of reference dimension of the
model refers to learners’ social comparison processes, in other words
when they compare themselves to their peers or others around them, as
well as to the grades or explicit feedback students receive. However, it
is possible that learners’ subjective perceptions of success or failure are
14 Self-concept
more important than their actual standardized grades (Mercer, 2011a;

see also Hsieh, Chapter 7, this volume).
Related constructs in second language acquisition

In second language acquisition (SLA), work examining the self-concept
explicitly has been relatively scarce. My own work has focused on try-
ing to better understand the nature and development of the construct
specifically in the domain of foreign language learning (FLL). I have

found self-concept to be composed of a complex web of interrelated
beliefs, which can be highly personal (Mercer, 2011a). My research
has shown that self-concept can vary across individuals, contexts, and
settings, and although some aspects of it display a certain degree of
stability, others are also seen to be dynamic across time in complex
ways (Mercer, 2009, 2011a, 2011b). In my findings, Marsh’s (1986)
model is also extended to include the influence of the interrelationships
between language learners’ self-concepts and their belief systems and
affect (Mercer, 2011a).
To understand the importance of self-related beliefs in effective and
successful language learning, it is also necessary to consider findings
about other related self-constructs, given the relative scarcity of studies
explicitly employing self-concept. For example, self-efficacy has been
shown to play a defining role in relation to language learners’ use of
strategies (e.g., Graham, 2007; Yang, 1999). Self-efficacy has also been
found to be closely connected with other aspects of a learner’s psy-
chology, such as the kinds of attributions they make (Hsieh, Chapter 7,
this volume; Hsieh & Schallert, 2008), the degree of anxiety they feel
in using the language (MacIntyre & Gregersen, Chapter 8, this vol-
ume; Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2006) and the kinds of goals they
choose to set themselves (Woodrow, 2006; Woodrow, Chapter 13, this
volume). Another related construct specifically conceptualized with
language learning in mind is L2 linguistic self-confidence (Clément,
1980), which in some ways is comparable to self-efficacy. Research
has shown how this construct appears to be crucially linked with
other centrally important learner variables, such as identity (Clément,
Noels, & Deneault, 2001; Morita, Chapter 3, this volume), motivation
(MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2002; Ushioda, Chapter 5,
this volume) and learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) (Yashima,
Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004; Yashima, Chapter 9, this volume).
The importance of self-concept in relation to motivation in SLA has
been highlighted recently in discussions surrounding the ‘L2 moti-
vational self system’ model (Dörnyei, 2005; Ushioda, Chapter 5, this
Sarah Mercer 15
volume). This model emerged in response to a growing need for a the-

ory of motivation in SLA that reflects the drives of learners across the
globe who participate in increasingly interconnected, multilingual and
multicultural communities. Based on the theories of self-discrepancy
and possible selves (see Murphey et al., Chapter 15, this volume),
the model places self-concept at the centre of learner motivation. The
model’s underlying hypothesis is that an individual compares their cur-
rent self-concept with other possible self guides, such as their ‘ideal self’

and ‘ought-to self’, and is then motivated to reduce any perceived gap
between their current self-concept and these ‘ideal’ and/or ‘ought-to’
self-concepts (see Ushioda, Chapter 5, this volume).
Together these studies highlight the importance of self-related beliefs
and their central role in connecting a range of key variables in the
domain of FLL. While the focus varies across these studies, viewing them
in sum can leave no doubt about the need for research in SLA to have a
thorough understanding of self constructs, in particular self-concept.
Research approaches
Within psychology, research on self-concept has been dominated by the
use of statistical analysis and fixed-item questionnaires, in particular a
range of self-description questionnaires developed by one of the leading
self-concept researchers and his team (Marsh, 2006).1 For the develop-
ment of these tools an important step has been the recognition of the
domain-specificity of self-concept. This means that questionnaires are
generally designed and worded in terms specific to a particular domain
rather than at a global level. Further, it has been argued that quantitative
research examining relationships between factors involving a dimension
of the self needs to ensure that the factors concerned are matched in
terms of their specificity (Swann, Chang-Schneider, & McClarity, 2007);
in other words, correlational studies should avoid combining a mixture
of global and specific-level factors.
Within SLA, much of the research examining self-efficacy and L2 lin-
guistic self-confidence has also been similarly quantitative in nature.
As self-concept represents a set of beliefs, it is useful to consider
research approaches to the study of beliefs, and Barcelos (2003) provides
a comprehensive overview of possible research methodologies, their
advantages and limitations. Essentially, she emphasizes the situated,
dynamic nature of beliefs: “beliefs do not have a cognitive dimension
only, but a social dimension as well, because they are born out of our
interactions with others and with our environment” (ibid, p. 8). Under-
standing self-beliefs, such as self-concept, as complex, situated and
16 Self-concept
dynamic networks of beliefs (Mercer, 2011a, 2011b) has implications

for research approaches which need to acknowledge these characteris-
tics. Despite the useful understandings gained from the quantitatively
oriented research in psychology, such studies have left many questions
unanswered. To examine the contextualized, complex and individ-
ual nature of self-concept, qualitative studies present perhaps a better
alternative.

An example of research
The data examined here form part of a larger longitudinal study

that was designed to investigate the development of a single learner’s
self-concept during the course of her three-year university degree pro-
gramme (Mercer, 2011b). The analysis presented in this chapter will
focus on considering in what ways this learner’s self-concept can be
conceived of as being situated, in other words, what it appears to be
interconnected with.
Data collection and analysis

Case studies
Following calls by some researchers to move away from ‘depersonal-
ized’, abstracted understandings of learners and instead acknowledge
their individuality (Ushioda, 2009), this study sought to examine the
situated complexity of one learner’s self-concept. A particularly useful
method for examining individual learners is case-study research. Case
studies are not without their critics and perhaps the most frequent
criticism concerns the generalizability of their findings. Although find-
ings cannot be unthinkingly applied across contexts and settings, case
studies are capable of generating theoretical propositions which can be
explored in other studies. They can also provide rich, detailed descrip-
tions that enable the reader to consider the potential appropriateness
and ‘transferability’ of the findings to their own contexts. Importantly,
their strength lies in their capacity to provide a deeper understanding of
individuals in a way that embraces differences and uniqueness without
any express need to search for similarities (for a thorough discussion of
case studies in SLA, see Duff, 2008).
Method and analysis

Data were generated with a single, mature female language learner at a
university in Austria. The participant, Carina (a pseudonym), was study-
ing for a bachelor’s degree in Intercultural Communication involving
Sarah Mercer 17
two foreign languages, Spanish and English. Carina began her studies at
university aged 38 following 11 years of working in her home country
as well as in various English- and Spanish-speaking countries.
Two different data collection tools were used to generate data:
15 weekly journal entries during Carina’s first six months at univer-
sity and a series of six in-depth, informal interviews based on open,
semi-structured guidelines conducted twice a year over the course of
the learner’s three-year degree programme. Questions covered retrospec-

tive reflections of her experiences in the past semester, goals and hopes
for the upcoming semester as well as self-descriptions of abilities and
feelings about her studies and self as a language learner.
The data were coded using the data management software Atlas.ti and
analysed using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006) in which
the data were coded and re-coded until no further new coding was pos-
sible. Examining interrelations between codes and alternating between
holistic and micro-level perspectives on the data, I gradually formulated
ideas in respect to the nature of her language learning self-concepts and
the ways in which they appeared to be situated. A characteristic of a
grounded theory approach is that external structures are not imposed
on the data, but rather the analysis must emerge from the actual data.
This does not mean that the researcher approaches the analysis without
any prior thinking; however, it is essential for the researcher to keep an
open mind and allow the data to ‘speak’.
Findings
The case-study data were examined to consider the ways in which
Carina’s EFL self-concept could be conceived of as a situated construct.
Situated contextually and interpersonally

The first way in which Carina’s self-concept can be thought of as a sit-
uated construct is in relation to her current educational context. This is
especially apparent in Carina’s journal data following her transition to
university as she adjusts to the demands and expectations of the new
setting and considers the implications for her self-concept:
I always thought I am in good command of English but had to realize

that I am a naive beginner. It sometimes scares me when I read a
text in one of the grammar books and don’t even understand the
explanations, not to talk about the exercises.
Throughout the data, it is possible to observe this interaction between

her EFL self-concept and her educational context as she (re-)considers
18 Self-concept
her frames of reference based on her experiences of participating in this

context:
I think the way of how we are tested here is difficult to learn or

difficult to get used to because you expect different things.
During the interviews, when asked to describe her strengths and weak-
nesses in English, the content of what she reported often changed to

reflect the content of her current courses:
I’m a learner when it comes to writing, really now I know I’m good at
it. Paragraphs and all that stuff, linking words. I was a learner, I never
was aware of linking words, so I’m really a learner when it comes to
a higher level of English, absolutely.
However, contexts beyond her immediate current educational setting

also appear to affect her current EFL self-concept as she frequently refers
to experiences in using the language outside of university and their
impact on her self-concept:
I really thought I don’t . . . but now that I was back in the States and
I got assured by so many people that my English is flawless to their
standards and far better than English of native speakers they know.
And that encouraged me. And I thought, ok, ok, I’m a perfectionist,
I want to reach the highest possible level but it might be good enough
now for here, you know. I always thought I am not good enough and
maybe I am.
In this way, Carina’s EFL self-concept can be seen as situated in rela-

tion to her ongoing experiences and interactions with the language in
a range of contexts, not just in relation to her immediate educational
setting.
Another way of understanding her self-concept as situated is through
her relationships with other people. First, as expected from the liter-
ature (e.g., Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Köller, 2008; Mercer, 2011a),
she often compares herself to others around her in order to form and
evaluate her self-concept in the university setting:
There were others who were much better and I really wanted to be
one of the better ones and I am just not.
She also relies on feedback and grades from teachers in order to help her
orient herself in relation to the group and formalized expectations, as
well as on informal feedback from others whose opinions she values:
Sarah Mercer 19
I took all the exams at the first date and I passed them all. And I think
I was really the only one. Because I met a lot of students and nobody
did it, so, I was, like, yeah, I’m on the right track and that combined,
of course, with the summer and my family and my friends they were
all so proud of me, they all congratulated me and they were all very
supportive, you know. It was them, everybody.
In this way, her EFL self-concept can be also considered to be socially and

relationally situated to a host of individuals such as her peers, teachers,
family, and various other individuals.
Situated intrapersonally and temporally

Another dimension to the situated nature of Carina’s EFL self-concept
concerns how it appears to be situated in relation to other aspects of her
psychology. As expected, Carina frequently compares her self-concepts,
such as her EFL self-concept and her Spanish self-concept, showing that
her sense of self in one domain is interdependent on how she sees
herself in perceived related domains:
For English I really have to work hard, I really do. Spanish, oh my

God, I don’t make any mistakes. Not at all. Not written, not spoken,
not at all. I have huge vocabulary. I don’t know why. And I thought
in English it’s the same but . . .
All the data are also strongly affective in tone and it is possible to see
how her EFL self-concept appears to be closely connected to her feelings
and emotional responses to contexts and experiences:
I had to take an English test on Wednesday and failed so terribly, I feel

embarrassed thinking about it.
Other aspects of Carina’s psychology which seem interrelated with her

self-concept concern her motivation and goals. Through her expression
of goals in terms of possible future selves, her current self-concept can
be thought of as situated in relation to her imagination and visions of
herself in the future:
. . . my goal definitely is American English. ( . . . ) So, I strive for

perfection as usual. I would love to get rid of my accent.
Carina also expresses clearly held beliefs about the nature and process
of language learning. Throughout the data, she appears to use these as a
20 Self-concept
frame of reference against which she evaluates her own behaviours and
self-concept (cf. Mercer, 2011a). For example, she believes it is impor-
tant to have a ‘natural talent’ for learning a foreign language (see Hsieh,
Chapter 7, this volume; Ryan & Mercer, Chapter 6, this volume) in order
to be successful and she reports feeling grateful that she has such a
natural gift:
Probably I do have a certain gift.

Thank God I don’t have to do it [learn grammar rules by heart].
It comes to me easily, naturally.
It is evident in the data that many of her current self-related beliefs stem
from her personal history and past experiences of using and learning the
language. In this way, Carina’s present self-concept cannot be detached
from her past:
Ok, so I think since my mum always told me “you’re good at lan-

guages, you’re good at languages, you’re good at languages” so I kind
of believed it. And I think I am good at languages.
The temporal dimension of her self-concept is also evident in her sense

of progress which she reports when she compares her past self-concept
in the domain with how she feels now:
It became better and I was really, I could see a progress.
Carina has accumulated experiences and formed her beliefs about her-
self and the domain gradually over years and these connections with her
recent and distant past still impact on her present self-concept. As such,
her EFL self-concept also needs to be understood as situated in time
connecting both past and present, as well as with the future through
her expression of possible selves.
Summary
This small-scale exploration of one student’s EFL self-concept helps to
illustrate the potential complexity and interrelatedness of learners’ self-
concepts. It implies the importance of taking a holistic view of learners
and considering the temporal development and multilayered, intercon-
nected nature of self-concept. The data suggest that understanding the
self as a situated construct means moving beyond acknowledging how
it is situated solely in relation to external contexts, settings, and other
Sarah Mercer 21
people, and also considering how it is situated within a person as a holis-

tic being in relation to their other beliefs, imagination, attitudes, affect,
and ongoing personal history. Above all, the findings suggest that any
research that examines self-concept in an abstracted way detached from
its contexts and the holistic nature of the individual is only capturing a
fragment of the true complexity surrounding this construct.
Implications

For research
Self-concept is a complex psychological construct that has been con-
ceptualized in a multitude of ways depending on the perspective and
field of inquiry. To date, it remains relatively under-researched within
SLA although the central importance of the self in its various guises is
widely acknowledged. The challenge for researchers in SLA is to learn
from the breadth of insights in other disciplines, such as psychology
and sociology, and incorporate these in ways sensitive to the nature
and character of language learning. Particular questions that the domain
poses in respect to self-concept concern:
• the interrelations between various language-related self-concepts

(especially for multilinguals);
• the impact on self-concept of native-speaker models and norms;
• the influence of experiences in a variety of settings (formal,
instruction-based and informal, acquisition-based);
• the contextual particularities of different individual languages.
Although I have found taking a holistic view of the learner to be espe-

cially revealing, I suggest that to push forward understandings about
self-concept in the domain of FLL, work in this area would benefit from
collaboration between researchers employing a mixture of method-
ologies and theoretical approaches (cf. MacIntyre, Noels, & Moore,
2010).
For pedagogy
Against the backdrop of the complexity that emerges from the brief con-
sideration of the data in this chapter, it becomes apparent that to talk
of enhancing self-concept in a straightforward manner is at best naive.
However, as has been seen, self-concepts are formed in relation to con-
texts and learners’ beliefs about the nature, demands, and expectations
in those settings. Therefore, educators can work at explicitly exploring
learners’ beliefs and creating a learning environment which is conducive
22 Self-concept
to developing a strong, positive but, importantly, realistic self-concept.

In such an environment, learners need to be able to develop a sense of
security, have genuine experiences of success, feel a sense of progress,
and develop a positive affective relationship to and motivation for the
language. There are no magic recipes for enhancing learners’ FLL self-
concepts, but given the acknowledged importance of the construct for
effective and successful learning, both educators and researchers need to
make understanding this construct in SLA a priority.

Note
1. ASDQ = Academic Self Description Questionnaires; SDQ = Self Descrip-
tion Questionnaires. (Marsh, 2006, pp. 9–16). Instruments available online:
http://www. self.ox.ac.uk/Instruments/packages.htm
Suggested further reading

Harter, S. (2006). The self. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology.
Volume 3: Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 505–570), Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley and Sons.
This chapter offers a detailed background to some of the issues surrounding
the development of self-concept and provides an overview of key historical
developments in this area. It focuses on both cognitive development and the
role of socialization processes.
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & McInerney, D. M. (Eds.) (2005). International

advances in self research. Volume 2. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
One of a series containing contributions from many of the leading researchers
in self-related research in educational psychology. A useful place to start
exploring much of this strand of research. See also: http://www.self.ox.ac.uk
(website of the SELF research centre based in Oxford).
Mercer, S. (2011). Towards an understanding of language learner self-concept.

Dordrecht: Springer.
This book provides an overview of the literature from psychology and considers
how it may be relevant for SLA. It also reports on an exploratory, qualita-
tive study designed to help understand the nature of the construct and its
development in respect to FLL.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In
P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches
(pp. 7–33). New York: Springer.
Sarah Mercer 23
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-

efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1),
1–40.
Brinthaupt, T. M., & Lipka, R. P. (1992). Introduction. In T. M. Brinthaupt &
R. P. Lipka (Eds.), The self: Definitional and methodological issues (pp. 1–11).
Albany: State of University of New York Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a
second language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language:

Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147–154). Oxford: Pergamon.
Clément, R., Noels, K. A., & Deneault, B. (2001). Interethnic contact, iden-
tity, and psychological adjustment: The mediating and moderating roles of
communication. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 559–577.
Craven, R. G., & Marsh, H. W. (2005). Dreaming futures: An empirical analy-
sis of Indigenous Australian students’ aspirations, self-concepts and realities.
In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International Advances
in Self research Volume 2 (pp. 211–232). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and
I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement,
self-concept and interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430–447.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York:
Routledge.
Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection.
Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 81–93.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.
Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. R. (1998). Relational self-worth: Differ-
ences in perceived worth as a person across interpersonal contexts among
adolescents. Child Development, 69(3), 756–766.
Hsieh, P. P., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and
attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation
in a foreign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4),
513–532.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age
effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2
motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language
Learning, 52(3), 537–564.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Moore, B. (2010). Perspectives on motivation in
second language acquisition: Lessons from the Ryoanji garden. In M. T. Prior
(Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 1–9).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2),
224–253.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social-psychological
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.
24 Self-concept
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external

frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23(1),
129–149.
Marsh, H. W. (2006). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The
role of self-concept in educational psychology. 26th Vernon-Wall Lecture. British
Psychological Society.
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Köller, O. (2008). Social comparison
and Big-Fish-Little-Pond effects on self-concept and other self-belief constructs:
Role of generalized and specific others. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3),

510–524.
Mercer, S. (2009). The dynamic nature of a tertiary learner’s foreign language
self-concepts. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in
language learning and teaching (pp. 205–220). Poznań–Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz
University Press.
Mercer, S. (2011a). Towards an understanding of language learner self-concept.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Mercer, S. (2011b). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and
change. System, 39(3), 335–346.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of anxiety: self-efficacy,
anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language
Annals, 39(2), 273–287.
Neisser, U. (1997). The self in culture. In U. Neisser & D. A. Jopling
(Eds.), Concepts and self-concepts (pp. 3–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Neisser, U., & Jopling, D. A. (Eds.). (1997). The conceptual self in context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self-concept: The shift
from the personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3),
257–278.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individual-
ism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs.
In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances
in self research Volume 2 (pp. 95–121). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Skaalvik, S., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2004). Gender differences in math and ver-
bal self-concept, performance expectations and motivation. Sex Roles, 50(3/4),
241–252.
Swann, W. B., Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarity, K. L. (2007). Do people’s
self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American
Psychologist, 62(2), 84–94.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation,
self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Valentine, J. C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Effects of self-beliefs on academic achieve-
ment and vice versa. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.),
International advances in self research Volume 2 (pp. 53–77). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Sarah Mercer 25
Woodrow, L. J. (2006). A model of adaptive language learning. The Modern

Yang, N. -D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning
strategy use. System, 27(4), 515–535.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes
and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communica-
tion. Language Learning, 54(1), 119–152.
3
Identity: The Situated
Construction of Identity
and Positionality in Multilingual

Classrooms
Naoko Morita
Introduction
Identity and language learning is one of the most vibrant areas of

current research that considers language learning as a fundamentally
social process. While recognizing the limitations of more traditional
psycholinguistic models that see language learning as primarily an
individualistic mental process, many scholars are now interested in
exploring the socially, culturally, and historically situated nature of
language learning (Zuengler & Miller, 2006). Parallel to this changing
view of language learning is the changing notion of language learners:
learners are now seen in terms of their dialectical, or mutually consti-
tutive, relationship to the social world rather than as constellations of
particular cognitive styles, affective orientations, and personality types
(Norton & Toohey, 2001). Within this view, identity is understood as
being constructed and negotiated within a given discourse commu-
nity. While scholars have drawn from various conceptions of identity,
two theoretical orientations that have been particularly influential in
second language acquisition (SLA) are what I broadly call sociocul-
tural frameworks and poststructuralist/critical feminist frameworks. The
former includes language socialization (Ochs, 1993) and community-
of-practice perspectives (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), both
of which view language learning as a process of participating in the
practices of a given community and gaining competence and mem-
bership within that community. Here, identity is conceptualized as
being socially and interactionally produced as individuals interact with
other members with varied statuses, knowledge, and experiences and
26
Naoko Morita 27
negotiate their competence and positions. Many studies have found

these frameworks useful in analysing the dynamic, situated process of
second language (L2) identity negotiation (Duff, 2002; Morita, 2004,
2009; Toohey, 2000). My own understanding of identity also comes
primarily from these sociocultural frameworks and I define it as indi-
viduals’ sense of who they are in relation to the particular social context
or community of practice in which they participate.
Poststructuralist and critical feminist perspectives of identity were

first introduced to L2 research by Bonnie Norton (Norton-Peirce, 1995).
Through an examination of the identity struggles of immigrant women
in Canada, Norton developed a theory of identity that emphasizes how
language learners’ identities and opportunities to practise the target
language are shaped by inequitable relations of power in the larger
society. Norton (2000) further argued that learners are “constantly orga-
nizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate
to the social world” (p. 11), and that therefore, identities are multiple,
fluid, and often contradictory. This conception of identity, as well as
the notion of ‘investment,’ has been influential in many subsequent
identity studies (e.g., McKay & Wong, 1996). Investment, according to
Norton (2000), “signals the socially and historically constructed rela-
tionship of learners to the target language, and their often ambivalent
desire to learn and practice it” (p. 10). Investment differs from the more
traditional notion of motivation in SLA: the former considers language
learners as having a complex social identity and multiple desires that
are influenced by social relations of power, while the latter presupposes
a “unitary, fixed, and ahistorical language learner” (p. 10).
Interest in identity and language learning has continued to grow for
the past decade and a half. In 1997, Norton edited a special-topic issue
of TESOL Quarterly on language and identity that included five extended
research studies conducted in five different countries. In 2002, a new
journal devoted to this area of research, the Journal of Language, Iden-
tity, and Education, was launched. In recent years, a number of books
and edited volumes addressing issues of identity, language, and educa-
tion have also been published (e.g., Block, 2007; Kubota & Lin, 2009;
Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). In what follows, I will first provide a
brief overview of the literature by illustrating the wide variety of L2
learning contexts that research has examined. This will be followed by
an example of my own research in which I seek to show the situated
construction and negotiation of identities within multilingual univer-
sity classrooms and its impact on L2 international students’ academic
discourse socialization.
28 Identity
Overview of the literature
While sharing some basic assumptions about identity and language

learning summarized above, scholars have investigated different groups
of learners by employing various research approaches. Most commonly,
studies on identity in SLA, including my own research (Morita, 2004,
2009), have taken an ethnographic or qualitative case-study approach
where researchers attempt to gain a holistic understanding of a spe-

cific research context and participants by using multiple data collection
methods such as observations, interviews, and open-ended question-
naires (e.g., McKay & Wong, 1996; Toohey, 2000). Another common
approach has been a narrative study where the main data come from
participants’ narratives such as diaries, journals, and a series of in-depth
interviews (e.g., Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). The types
of learners and learning contexts that have been typically examined
include:
• adult immigrants in L2 classrooms, workplaces, or homes;

• students in postsecondary institutions;
• adolescents in secondary schools;
• children in early childhood schooling.
Identity research on adult immigrants

Studies on adult immigrants have most commonly investigated how this
population often struggles to reconstruct their identities as the power
structures related to race, ethnicity, gender, class, language, and so on in
their host communities tend to limit their identity options (Cervatiuc,
2009; Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). Norton’s aforemen-
tioned study (2000) explored the identity transformations of five immi-
grant women in Canada through qualitative methods including a diary
study. The women’s narratives revealed their ongoing struggle to achieve
‘the right to speak,’ which was unequally distributed in their workplaces
and homes. For example, Eva, a young Polish woman, was initially
excluded from the social network among her Anglophone co-workers
at a fast food restaurant. However, Eva eventually gained access to this
network as well as opportunities to speak from a more powerful position
by actively resisting marginalization and making use of certain symbolic
resources such as her ‘youth and charm’ that were valued within the
network. Norton argued that Eva’s changing identity from an unskilled
immigrant to a valued co-worker needs to be understood with reference
to the power relations at her workplace as well as her human agency and
Naoko Morita 29
investment. More recently, Cervatiuc (2009) investigated the identity

formation of adult immigrants to Canada. The 20 participants in this
study, in contrast to the women in Norton’s study, considered them-
selves as professionally successful and highly proficient in their target
language. Through a series of interviews, Cervatiuc identified three com-
mon strategies used by the participants for constructing such positive
identities: generating a self-motivating inner dialogue, gaining access
to the social networks of native speakers, and adhering to an imagined

community of successful multilingual individuals.
Identity research on postsecondary students

Research has also examined L2 students in postsecondary institutions
(Canagarajah, 2004; Morita, 2004, 2009; Waterstone, 2008). The focus of
the studies with this population is usually students’ identity negotiation
as part of their academic discourse socialization through which the new
students become increasingly competent in academic ways of knowing,
speaking, and writing as they participate in various academic practices.
My study (Morita, 2004, 2009) investigated the academic socializa-
tion experiences of a group of international students from Japan in a
Canadian university. Through classroom observations, interviews, and
student self-reports, I analysed the varied ways in which these students
negotiated their competence, roles, and identities in their new academic
communities. A notable finding was that the students’ membership and
identities were constructed locally and interactionally within a given
classroom context, and that therefore the same individual could develop
different types of identity and participate differently across different
classroom contexts. This study also revealed the transformative nature
of linguistic, cultural, and academic border-crossing: the students’ sense
of who they were changed significantly as they appropriated academic
discourses selectively and creatively. This is a common theme in studies
on identity and academic literacy such as Canagarajah’s (2004) textual
analysis on multilingual writers’ strategies and struggle for ‘voice’ in
academic discourse, and Waterstone’s (2008) interview-based study on
an undergraduate English language learner’s multiple and contradictory
identifications through academic writing.
Identity research on multilingual adolescents

Studies on multilingual adolescents have documented the complex,
often unsettling picture of identity negotiation by learners of this
age group (Duff, 2002; Harklau, 2000; Lam, 2000; McKay & Wong,
30 Identity
1996). McKay and Wong’s (1996) two-year ethnographic study anal-

ysed the identity construction of four Chinese immigrant students in
a US high school. By examining the students’ literacy experiences, the
authors found that the students were subjected to multiple discourses
in their environment that were characterized by asymmetrical power
relations. These discourses included colonialist/racialized discourses on
immigrants, model-minority discourse, Chinese cultural nationalist dis-
courses, social and academic school discourses, and gender discourses.

While being positioned variously by these discourses, the individual stu-
dents exercised their human agency by constructing varied identities,
which, in turn, had a significant impact on their different learning tra-
jectories. An ethnographic case study by Lam (2000) documented an
interesting identity transformation of a Chinese immigrant teenager,
Almon, through his electronic textual experiences. Whereas Almon was
largely stigmatized as a low-achieving English as a second language (ESL)
student and struggled to develop English literacy in his school envi-
ronment, his engagement with written communication on the internet
with a transnational peer group in English allowed him to construct
a more confident identity in this web-based context and to develop a
sense of belonging to a global English-speaking community.
Identity research on young children

Finally, identity construction can be central to younger children
who experience schooling through their additional language (Day,
2002; Hawkins, 2005; Toohey, 2000). Toohey’s (2000) longitudinal
ethnographic project followed a group of children with minority lan-
guage backgrounds in kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2, and examined
how they “came to inhabit (temporarily and in contradictory ways) par-
ticular identities in their classrooms” (p. 16). Toohey found that the
specific practices of their classrooms (e.g., “using your own words and
ideas” in Grade 1) contributed to the stratification of the classroom com-
munity, which then led to the exclusion of some minority children from
certain activities, resources, and identities. Similarly, Hawkins (2005)
investigated “positioning and identity work” (p. 67) in a kindergarten
classroom through ethnographic methods and illustrated how identities
constructed by two bilingual children, William and Anton, led to their
differential access to the academic literacy practices of school. Interest-
ingly, Hawkins found that William, who achieved a high-status social
positioning among the network of his classmates, showed significantly
less progress in language and literacy development than Anton, who
had a much lower social status within the same network.
Naoko Morita 31
As we have seen, research on identity and language learning has

examined a wide variety of language learners based on the assump-
tion that learners are complex social beings. On the one hand, research
in this area places a great emphasis on the social, political, and eco-
nomic arrangements of a given context within which learners negotiate
their sense of who they are. Many studies have documented that these
arrangements often position language learners unfavourably and that
therefore identity negotiation for them can be a “site of struggle”

(Norton, 2000). On the other hand, studies also show that individu-
als with various needs, desires, and aspirations resist positioning and
attempt to reposition themselves to gain legitimacy or the right to speak.
Exploring and theorizing this dynamic interplay between the social con-
text and the individual language learner has been the primary goal of
identity research.
The situated construction of identity and positionality

in a multilingual classroom: An example
of current research
Background
The example of current research I present here comes from a multi-
ple case study on the academic socialization and identity negotiation
of Japanese graduate students at a Canadian university (Morita, 2002,
2004). In this larger study, I was particularly interested in exploring
how the students participated in classroom discussions, what kinds of
identities or positions they constructed through their classroom par-
ticipation, and how these identities and positions in turn influenced
their participation and academic socialization. I collected data over an
entire academic year by using multiple methods including: students’
weekly self-reports about their classroom participation, formal inter-
views as well as frequent informal conversations with each of the seven
focal students, classroom observations, and interviews with ten course
instructors (see Morita, 2002, 2004 for more detail). While data analysis
was grounded in the collected data, it also drew insights from both of the
two approaches that I have outlined earlier in this chapter: sociocultural
frameworks – particularly community-of-practice perspectives (Wenger,
1998), and poststructuralist/critical feminist frameworks on identity and
power (Canagarajah, 1999; Norton, 2000).
In this chapter, in order to illustrate the situated construction of lan-
guage learners’ identities in a multilingual academic setting, I present
two cases from the larger study, Emiko and Shiho (pseudonyms), whose
32 Identity
stories were not featured in my earlier article (Morita, 2004). Both

were in their early 20s, pursuing their first master’s degree in linguis-
tics, and took exactly the same courses in their first year. In the larger
study, I explored their experiences in depth by examining their personal
backgrounds, histories, and investments, analysing their classroom par-
ticipation and identity negotiation and transformation within two
different courses over time, triangulating multiple sources of data and
viewpoints, and also comparing and contrasting their experiences. Due

to space limitations, what I present below is a significantly condensed
version of my analysis and refers only to the students’ experiences in
one course, Course C. My main goal here is to demonstrate how the stu-
dents negotiated their identities and positionalities, in other words their
positions or roles in this particular community of practice, through their
ongoing interaction with their instructor and peers and by employing
unique strategies (see Morita, 2002 for a more comprehensive analy-
sis and discussion). Course C was a two-semester introductory course
on sociolinguistics. There were 25 students including both graduate and
senior undergraduate students from various cultural and linguistic back-
grounds. Dr. Hill (pseudonym) was an experienced female instructor
who herself had both personal and professional multilingual experi-
ence. A typical class consisted of a lecture by the instructor, a whole-class
discussion based on weekly readings, and student presentations.
Emiko in Course C
Emiko had spent her entire life on a small island in Western Japan
until she became an English major at a university in a much larger
city. She described her university days as being much more challeng-
ing compared to her life on the island, where she had felt completely
comfortable being surrounded by a close network of friends and fami-
lies and doing well at school. In university, she struggled to participate
actively in her classes, especially English conversation classes, and felt
that she consequently developed an identity as “being less able than
others” in these classes. Emiko then sought other opportunities to learn
English and regain her confidence such as enrolling in an eight-week
intensive English course in England and travelling through Europe for
two months alone. During these trips, she also collected data for her
graduating paper that was about “images of women” – a topic in which
she had always been interested. After graduation, she went back to her
hometown and began teaching English at local public high schools on
a part-time basis. After one and a half years of teaching, however, she
decided to “go abroad and meet different kinds of people,” which she
Naoko Morita 33
stated was her primary reason for coming to Canada. She also wanted
to study teaching Japanese as a foreign language and further explore the
issues of language and gender at the graduate level.
Emiko’s participation in Course C was characterized by her almost
complete silence especially for the first four months. It was not uncom-
mon that an entire class would go by without her speaking once. The
only times she spoke were when she was asked to do so by the instruc-
tor, and when she did speak, she spoke softly and minimally. Even when

the class discussed aspects of the Japanese language and society, which
happened fairly often, it was normally Shiho who provided informa-
tion, while Emiko remained silent. Emiko attributed her difficulty in
participating to her limited ability to follow lectures and class discus-
sions as well as her extreme nervousness about being called upon by the
instructor without warning. In one class I observed Emiko being asked
to speak. The following is an excerpt from my field notes about this
instance:
[After a lively discussion], Dr. Hill called upon Emiko and said,
“Which question did you do?” Emiko said something softly . . . . Then
Dr. Hill said, “ . . . Can you summarize the question for us?” Emiko
remained silent for 5 seconds or so, looking down at her notes.
Dr. Hill then read the question for Emiko, and Emiko began read-
ing her answer. Emiko was speaking rather softly and Dr. Hill stood
up from her chair, perhaps trying to hear her better. After Emiko
finished, Dr. Hill said to the class, “Do you follow Emiko?”
(Field notes)
Commenting on this incident, Emiko said that Dr. Hill did not under-
stand her, which was “embarrassing,” and that she wished that her
classmates would forget about her “bad speech.”
Emiko felt that the main source of her nervousness was her fear of
making English mistakes and lack of confidence. She was also con-
cerned about being viewed as “stupid” by her classmates because of
her “limited speech” or silence. Facing these issues, however, Emiko
attempted to improve the situation by using several strategies. First, she
consulted Dr. Hill individually and asked her if it would be possible not
to call upon her in class, while also indicating that it was not her inten-
tion to avoid speaking indefinitely. Dr. Hill’s response was empathetic
and she agreed to “wait until [Emiko was] ready” (Dr. Hill, interview).
After this meeting, Emiko began visiting Dr. Hill periodically to dis-
cuss course-related topics as well as issues she was facing in her studies.
34 Identity
Through such interactions, Dr. Hill came to understand Emiko’s appre-

ciation of the course subject and felt that they developed a relationship
where they “could trust each other” (Dr. Hill, interview). Meanwhile,
Dr. Hill did not ask Emiko to speak for the rest of Term 1. Although this
arrangement helped to reduce Emiko’s anxiety, it also contributed to her
sense of isolation as well as her identity as a marginal non-participant.
Furthermore, somewhat ironically, her prolonged silence put her in a
situation where she might “draw attention and curiosity from everyone

if [she] spoke” (in Emiko’s words). Her worries ended, however, in the
first class in Term 2 when Dr. Hill spontaneously suggested that Emiko
present her essay assignment. Emiko seemed surprised and requested her
presentation to be postponed to the following class. In response, Dr. Hill
said, “Emiko is worried about her English being not good enough, but
we all understand her, don’t we?” (Field notes).
In addition to approaching the instructor, Emiko also attempted to
talk to her classmates individually during breaks. Being aware of her role
as a quiet student, she felt that it was important for her to “somehow
make [her] presence known”:
If I could talk to my classmates during breaks or outside the class and

tell them what I thought about the issues discussed in class, I would
feel much better because my classmates would then know what I’m
thinking about. If I could do that, I wouldn’t feel so disappointed
when I couldn’t make myself understood in class.
(Emiko, weekly report)
Even though it was not easy for Emiko to approach her classmates, she
made a conscious effort to do so. One strategy she used was to approach
individuals who showed an interest in Japan and who might be will-
ing to talk to her. Emiko also attempted to compensate for her limited
oral performance with her written work. In particular, she put additional
effort into her long essay assignment, for which, although this was not
required, she designed and conducted a small-scale research project.
Dr. Hill indicated that through this essay Emiko displayed her “sensi-
tive appreciation” of the subject matter. Reflecting on her participation
in Term 2, Emiko said:
Toward the end I didn’t feel pressure to speak perfect English . . . .

I think it’s because I talked to my classmates more and they started to
know me better. Also, I remember this clearly. When I was presenting
Naoko Morita 35
my paper, one of them smiled at me. That smile made me feel really
good. It’s such a small thing but changed the way I felt in the
classroom.
(Emiko, interview)
Shiho in Course C
Shiho was born in a large metropolitan city in Eastern Japan. Due to
her father’s employment, she lived in various locations including Korea

(between age two and six), two different cities in Japan (from Grade 1
to 3), and London (from Grade 4 to 8). In London, she went to an inter-
national school where she took ESL courses in the first two years and
was mainstreamed in her third year. While she quickly developed her
English during her stay there, her father made sure that Shiho retained
Japanese as her first language as he “hated the idea that [Shiho] might
become someone without a home country and language” (Shiho, inter-
view). When she returned to Japan, however, her resocialization into a
pubic junior high school did not go smoothly: she felt that she “stood
out” as a returnee and that her Japanese was inadequate to properly
communicate with her teachers and senior students. She felt much more
at ease after changing to a senior high school for returnees. She then
went to a university in a large metropolitan city in Japan and majored
in Japanese literature. She had a special reason for choosing this major:
The international school I went to in London had students from all

over the world . . . My classmates knew quite a lot about their country
for their age, but I didn’t know much about Japan at all . . . I needed
to learn about Japan in order to describe it to foreigners. I was also
in my adolescence and forming my identity, and perhaps for that
reason I felt even more strongly that I should learn about my own
country.
(Shiho, interview)
During university, Shiho continued to have the desire to provide accu-

rate information about Japan and its language to non-Japanese speakers,
and decided to study Japanese linguistics at the master’s level in Canada
in order to teach Japanese as a foreign language in the future.
Shiho’s participation in Course C was in sharp contrast with Emiko’s.
She was a regular contributor in class discussions and when she spoke,
she appeared calm and seemed to take her time. While she mentioned in
her earlier reports that she became occasionally frustrated for not being
36 Identity
able to speak “spontaneously” or “accurately,” overall, she enjoyed

participating in discussions:
I guess I am getting used to giving comments or asking questions in

class. At the beginning of the term, I had to prepare myself before
I could speak in class, but now I can speak more naturally and spon-
taneously. This is good because I won’t have to miss the timing to ask
or give comments while preparing myself.

(Shiho, weekly report)
Shiho particularly enjoyed the discussions when topics related to Japan

or other Asian societies and languages received attention. Over the
academic year, she introduced and discussed various topics such as his-
torical use of hiragana (a phonetic Japanese orthography) by women,
personal pronouns, address terms, kinship terms, and honorifics in
Japanese. She also appreciated the positive feedback she received from
others and felt a sense of membership in the classroom:
For the Japanese kinship terms presentation, I was asked a lot of ques-
tions from my classmates, especially from students with a non-Asian
background. . . . The question-answer session during my presentation
was really nice because we know each other and can involve ourselves
in the discussion in a relaxed mood without being nervous. I really
feel I am part of the class.
(Shiho, weekly report)
There seemed to be multiple reasons for Shiho’s active and very vis-
ible participation. First, she felt comfortable speaking English in this
context, perhaps much more than Emiko did. Because of her earlier
socialization in a British school, she was used to the kinds of class-
room interaction that, in her observation, were normative in English-
speaking Western countries (e.g., active interaction between teachers
and students). In addition, her self-reports indicated that while offering
information about Japan/Japanese on a regular basis, she also attempted
to be considerate of her classmates’ needs and avoided talking exces-
sively about a topic that might not interest them. This particular aspect
of her participation seemed to help construct her status as a competent
and accountable member of the classroom community, which in turn
further facilitated her participation. Finally, she believed that it was con-
sidered important in Western educational culture to demonstrate one’s
knowledge and presence by actively participating in discussions:
Naoko Morita 37
By participating actively in discussions, you can demonstrate to your

instructor that you are learning well . . . I think that’s better than
being quiet and being forgotten by your instructor. . . . [In Western
countries] you need to demonstrate how much you know and how
much you understand. When I was in London, I wasn’t aware of this
explicitly but knew it implicitly.
(Shiho, interview)

Discussion
The contrasting experiences of the two students described above illus-
trate, first of all, the situated nature of identity construction: that is,
identities are constructed locally and interactionally in a dynamic fash-
ion rather than simply pre-determined by fixed social categories such
as race, ethnicity, gender, and age. While sharing a very similar back-
ground in terms of some of these categories, the students developed
very different identities in Course C that reflected the different ways in
which they participated as well as the different positions they occupied
in the classroom community. Emiko struggled to participate actively,
which contributed to her identity as a “less competent” member of the
class and her relatively peripheral position in the group. In addition,
although well intentioned, the instructor’s comments regarding Emiko
(e.g., “Do you follow Emiko?”; “Emiko is worried about her English
being not good enough, but we all understand her, don’t we?”) seemed
to help confirm Emiko’s status as someone with less legitimacy. In con-
trast, Shiho developed an identity as a competent member by actively
participating in class discussions and having her contributions validated
by others. This difference came partly from the different kinds of learn-
ing trajectories these students had brought with them. This leads to my
second point: identities are constructed historically. During her child-
hood and adolescence, Shiho had been socialized into multicultural
English-speaking classrooms, and she was able to use this background
to her advantage in Course C. In other words, Shiho was a relative
old-timer (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in a classroom like Course C, whereas
Emiko was a relative newcomer to such an environment.
Another insight that can be drawn from these cases has to do with the
role of human agency. While being positioned differently, both Emiko
and Shiho used various strategies to maximize their learning opportuni-
ties and negotiate positive roles and identities. Emiko tried to counteract
her relatively marginal membership by interacting with the instructor
and her classmates individually and also by trying to compensate for
38 Identity
her perceived limited oral performance with her written work. By doing
so, she gained the opportunity to communicate her knowledge, compe-
tence, and sense of investment, which in turned helped her to establish
some level of legitimacy as a class member. Even Shiho, who did not
seem to experience much difficulty, made a conscious effort to establish
her status by actively demonstrating her knowledge and also monitor-
ing the quality and quantity of her contributions. This view of language
learners as active human agents with a unique set of personal his-

tory, needs, and aspirations, leads to my final point concerning the
significance of identity in language learning. As the two cases showed,
learners’ sense of who they are, which is co-constructed by their human
agency and the given learning context, influences significantly how
they participate or are allowed to participate in the target language com-
munity and what kinds of opportunities they gain for learning and using
the target language.
Future directions for research and considerations

for pedagogy
To summarize, research on identity and language learning has revealed

how language learners are socially and historically constructed and
constrained, and how at the same time they actively identify them-
selves and may also resist identification. Research has also shown that
this process of identification has a significant impact on the ways
in which learners participate in their target community, which in
turn affects their language learning in different ways. More research
is needed, however, in order to theorize the complex and seemingly
variable relationship between identity and language learning. Since
a large portion of research has examined ESL contexts within North
America, future research should explore second and foreign language
learning contexts in other parts of the world involving different lan-
guages (e.g., Siegal, 1996). Research on identity negotiation through
different modes of communication (face-to-face, written, online, etc.)
needs to be encouraged as people now enjoy a variety of multimodal
communication technologies (e.g., Lam, 2000). Another fertile area
to examine is the identity formation of individuals who use multi-
ple languages in different spheres of their daily lives, and its impact
on the acquisition, maintenance, or loss of languages (e.g., Maguire &
Curdt-Christiansen, 2007).
Finally, more attention needs to be paid to implications of identity
issues for pedagogical practices. In spite of the centrality of identity
Naoko Morita 39
demonstrated by research, there has been limited discussion as to what

teachers, educational institutions, and researchers should do to address
it. Based on her diary study with immigrant women, Norton (2000)
puts forward the notion of “classroom-based social research” and sug-
gests that through engagement in reflective practices such as journal
writing, learners can take on “the more powerful identity of ethnogra-
pher in relation to the larger world of target language speakers” (p. 18).
If we take the view that language learning is a transformative process of

identity construction and reconstruction, pedagogical interventions of
this sort must be explored in order to understand and support learners’
varying needs associated with this process.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational
change. London: Longman/Pearson Education.
This book presents Norton’s pioneering work on identity and language learn-
ing and offers a good introduction to poststructuralist and critical feminist
approaches to identity. It presents the compelling stories of five immigrant
women in a naturalistic setting and is a must read for those who are interested
in identity and adult L2 learning.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Toohey complements Norton’s work by offering a community-of-practice
perspective and analysing the identity construction of minority children in
a school setting. It is also an excellent example of ethnographic classroom
research that aims for a contextualized understanding of identity formation
and transformation.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual

contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
This edited volume presents a collection of papers that examine identity
(re)negotiations of groups and individuals in a wide variety of multilingual
contexts. The opening chapter by the editors offers a comprehensive intro-
duction to current issues and theories in this area of research, in addition to
the particular theoretical approach (a poststructuralist approach) taken by this
volume.
References
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching.
New York: Oxford University Press.
40 Identity
Canagarajah, S. (2004). Multilingual writers and the struggle for voice in aca-
demic discourse. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities
in multicultural contexts (pp. 266–289). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cervatiuc, A. (2009). Identity, good language learning, and adult immigrants in
Canada. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8(4), 254–271.
Day, E. M. (2002). Identity and the young English language learner. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and
difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream.

Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289–322.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the ‘good kids’ to the ‘worst’: Representations of
English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1),
35–67.
Hawkins, M. R. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies
in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 59–82.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.) (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language
education: Exploring critically engaged practice. New York: Routledge.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a
teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Maguire, M. H., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2007). Multiple schools, languages,
experiences and affiliations: Ideological becomings and positionings. Heritage
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities:
Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adoles-
cent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 577–608.
Morita, N. (2002). Negotiating participation in second language academic commu-
nities: A study of identity, agency, and transformation. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of British Columbia.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language
academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573–603.
Morita, N. (2009). Language, culture, gender, and academic socialization. Lan-
guage and Education, 23(5), 443–460.
change. London: Longman/Pearson Education.
Norton, B. (Ed.) (1997). Special-topic issue: Language and identity. TESOL
Quarterly, 31(3).
Norton-Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language
learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 307–322.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspec-
tive. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(3), 287–306.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual
contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation
and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
second language learning (pp. 155–177). New York: Oxford University Press.
Naoko Morita 41
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguis-

tic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3),
356–382.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Waterstone, B. (2008). ‘I hate the ESL idea’: A case study of identity and academic
literacy. TESL Canada, 26(1), 52–67.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two
parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
4
Personality: Personality Traits
as Independent and Dependent
Variables

Jean-Marc Dewaele
Introduction
Considering the massive amount of research on aptitude and motiva-

tion in second language acquisition (SLA), it is rather surprising that so
little has been published on the effect of personality on SLA. Dörnyei
(2005) suggests that this may be because from an educational perspec-
tive “the role and impact of personality factors are of less importance
than those of some other individual differences variables such as apti-
tude and motivation” (p. 10). However, Dörnyei (2005) decided to
include a chapter on “Personality, temperament and mood” in his book
after coming across the following quotation by the psychologists Pervin
and John (2001): “Personality is the part of the field of psychology that
considers people in their entirety as individuals and as complex beings”
(p. 3). The relatively limited interest in individual differences in per-
sonality and SLA stands in sharp contrast with the field of personality
psychology, where several journals focus on individual differences, such
as Personality and Individual Differences and Individual Differences in Learn-
ing. SLA researchers who have integrated psychological variables into
their research designs have primarily done so in order to identify the
personality traits that may be linked to success in SLA. The fact that so
few significant relationships between personality traits and success in
the second or foreign language (L2/FL) have been identified has puz-
zled researchers. This is due to two main reasons: first, the nature of the
dependent variable, namely the wide variety of measures of ‘success’
in the L2 and, second, the difficulty of disentangling the independent
variable from instructional and situational variables. In other words, a
42
Jean-Marc Dewaele 43
certain personality trait might have an effect in a particular situation

where learners have to perform a specific task (MacIntyre, Clément, &
Noels, 2007), but that effect may disappear in another situation or in
relation to another task. Moreover, although significant relationships
between psychological variables and L2 measures have been found, their
effect sizes are always small. It is thus difficult to draw clear-cut conclu-
sions that apply to SLA in general. All this has probably discouraged
researchers from delving further into possible links between personality

traits and SLA.
I have compared this search for the psychological sources of individ-
ual differences in SLA to the search for the Holy Grail where researchers
resemble “Arthur’s knights, stumbling through the night, guided by a
stubborn belief that something must be there, glimpsing tantalizing
flashes of light from a distance, only to discover that their discoveries
looked rather pale in the daylight” (Dewaele, 2009, p. 625). The fact that
findings have been relatively disappointing is probably linked to both
theoretical and methodological reasons; the SLA researcher needs to
combine considerable theoretical knowledge and methodological skill
in personality psychology and social psychology, as well as applied lin-
guistics, educational psychology, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics
(p. 625). Given the complex interaction of personality variables of lan-
guage learners with dynamic socio-educational contexts, it becomes
very difficult to isolate the effect of personality among the cognitive,
social, and situational variables that contribute to SLA and L2 produc-
tion. Indeed, the effect of some personality traits can remain hidden
in some situations or tasks, but may appear in other circumstances.
My own research, for example, has shown that while extraverts and
introverts are roughly indistinguishable in terms of fluency in a relaxed
conversation in the L2, the introverts’ fluency drops significantly in an
oral exam situation (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999).
Dörnyei (2009) agrees with this dynamic view, pointing out that we
should abandon the outdated idea of stable and monolithic learner
characteristics “because it ignores the situated and multicomponential
nature of these higher order attributes” (p. 243). SLA research today is
situated and process-oriented, which means that learner attributes are
neither stable nor context-independent, but interact with the context
and vary over time.
In this chapter, I will briefly present the background of research
into personality traits before offering a short overview of the link
between some specific dimensions of personality and their link
with SLA.
44 Personality
Personality
Personality traits are hierarchically organized with (typically) five broad,
orthogonal (i.e., independent) dimensions at the apex and a larger num-
ber of more specific traits further down the hierarchy (Pervin & John,
2001). These traits are universal, in other words, the same dimensions
appear in questionnaires in various languages across the world. Per-
sonality inventories always rely on self-report from participants who
have to indicate whether, or to what extent, they agree that a partic-

ular statement applies to them. Typical items are “Does your mood
go up and down?” or “Are you a talkative person?” or “Do you usu-
ally take the initiative in making new friends?” There are usually
ten items or more per dimension, which allows researchers to calcu-
late individual scores on the various dimensions. Indeed, a participant
may answer “yes” to some of the items dealing with a personality
dimension, but not necessarily to all. Traits are thus continuous dimen-
sions of variability and scores are normally distributed. In other words,
there are more people situated in the middle of a personality dimen-
sion rather than at its extremes. It means, for example, that there
are more ‘ambiverts’ than either extraverts or introverts (Pervin &
John, 2001).
The dominant personality taxonomy is the so-called ‘Big Five’ con-
struct. Costa and McCrae (1985) constructed the NEO Personality Inven-
tory based on the Big Five framework, and the items were designed
to assess how respondents typically think, act, and feel.1 The Big Five
personality traits (Extraversion versus Introversion; Neuroticism versus
Emotional Stability; Conscientiousness; Agreeableness2 and Openness-
to-Experience) are situated at the summit of the hierarchy. Personality
psychologists working in the Big Five framework are resolutely quantita-
tive, mainly because the five-factor model emerged from the application
of factor analysis (a statistical technique) to numerous datasets from
around the world. Further, almost all of the evidence in support of this
model is quantitative and based on statistical analyses (Petrides, per-
sonal communication). In addition to the ‘Big Five’, there are many
more so-called ‘lower-order’ personality traits, which are often corre-
lated with Big Five traits but also explain unique variance. A number
of such traits have been considered in SLA.
While there is abundant evidence that ‘super-traits’ (or ‘higher-order
traits’) and ‘lower-order’ traits determine behaviour in general, it is less
clear to what extent they affect SLA or L2 production. In the next section
I shall present a short overview of some of the SLA research linked to
personality traits. First, I will consider four higher-order traits; second,

I will highlight the more abundant SLA research on seven lower-order
personality traits.
Personality variables in SLA research

Extraversion
The first ‘Big Five’ dimension, extraversion, has been most frequently
included in SLA research designs. This is not surprising considering

the common belief among teachers and SLA researchers that extraverts
should be successful L2 learners. Indeed, the typical extravert is sociable,
active, talkative, person-oriented, optimistic, fun-loving, assertive, and
affectionate. Their gregariousness and willingness to engage in interac-
tions, driven by an innate optimism and love of taking risks, seem to
give them an edge over the introvert who is typically reserved, sober,
aloof, unexuberant, task-oriented, retiring, and quiet (Costa & McCrae,
1985). However, these teachers and researchers perhaps underestimated
the quiet determination of the hard-working introverts. The latter may
be more inclined to read books than engage in risky social interactions,
but it has become clear that they often have an edge over the more
extraverted learners in some areas of the L2. In other words, extraverts
and introverts seem to follow different routes to success in the L2.
Not surprisingly, studies where extraversion scores have been cor-
related with foreign language test scores have revealed weak and
inconsistent results (Dewaele, 2007). Extraversion also acquired a bad
reputation after a partially flawed study by Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern,
and Todesco (1978) on personality variables and language learning
(Dewaele & Furnham, 1999). The authors looked at whether ‘good
language learners’ scored higher on extraversion. They attributed the
lack of correlation between test results and extraversion scores to the
nature of the personality questionnaire. As a result, applied linguists
have tended to shun psychological variables in their research designs.
Dewaele and Furnham (1999) have suggested that if Naiman et al. (1978)
had included fluency variables, they might have come to very differ-
ent conclusions. Indeed, extraverts have been found to score higher
on oral fluency measures, especially in stressful situations where the
larger capacity of their short-term memory gives them an edge in L2
production (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999). Ockey (2011) reported that sev-
eral facets of extraversion, namely assertiveness, warmth, activity and
excitement seeking, were significant explanatory variables of English L2
fluency ratings of Japanese learners.
46 Personality
Ehrman (2008) used an improved and updated ‘good language

learner’ design with the same aim, namely to establish the psycholog-
ical profile of a sample of the top 2 per cent best language learners
out of 3145 learners (using a commonly used personality questionnaire,
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). Only one type was significantly over-
represented, namely introverted-intuitive-thinking-judging (INTJ) types
(p. 64). She concluded that “the best language learners tend to have
introverted personalities, a finding which runs contrary to much of the

literature, and, even, to pedagogical intuition. The best learners are intu-
itive and they are logical and precise thinkers who are able to exercise
judgment” (p. 70).
Introverts have been found to perform slightly better on written tests
compared with extraverts who excel in oral tasks (Robinson, Gabriel, &
Katchan, 1994). They have also been found to perform slightly better on
L2 vocabulary tests (Carrell, Prince, & Astika, 1996; van Daele, Housen,
Pierrard, & Debruyn, 2006). In addition, introverts were found to per-
form best on vocabulary tests when the items were learned in a familiar
learning situation, while extraverts performed best when the learning
situation had a moderate degree of novelty (MacIntyre, Clément, &
Noels, 2007).
Introverts and extraverts also seem to prefer different strategies in
learning the L2. Extraverts tend to prefer social strategies, like cooper-
ation with others or asking for clarification, while introverts are more
likely to try to overcome obstacles without outside help (Wakamoto,
2009). The extraverts’ inclination to take risks seems to extend to their
linguistic behaviour including the use of more slang words (Dewaele &
Regan, 2001) and a greater willingness to engage in potentially more
risky emotional interactions (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2002).
Neuroticism
The second of the ‘Big Five’ constructs is the dimension neuroticism ver-
sus emotional stability. People who score high on neuroticism (N) are
worried, nervous, emotional, insecure, and feel inadequate. Low-N indi-
viduals are calm, relaxed, unemotional, hardy, secure, and self-satisfied
(Costa & McCrae, 1985). Very few research designs in SLA have included
neuroticism. An exception is Robinson, Gabriel, and Katchan (1994)
who found that high-N foreign language students performed better in
an oral exam task and in a written test.
In a study I carried out with Flemish high school students, I found
that neuroticism was unrelated to the students’ foreign language atti-
tudes and their foreign language grades (Dewaele, 2007). However, in an
earlier study on the same sample I found that High-N students tended
to experience more Foreign Language Anxiety (FLA) in their English
L3 (Dewaele, 2002). A stronger positive correlation emerged between
neuroticism and FLA in the L2, L3, and L4 of university students in
Spain and the UK (Dewaele, 2011).
Conscientiousness

The next ‘Big Five’ dimension that has been linked to SLA is
conscientiousness. This refers to the degree of organization, persis-
tence, and motivation in goal-directed behaviour. Individuals who score
high on conscientiousness tend to be organized, reliable, hard-working,
self-disciplined, punctual, scrupulous, neat, ambitious, and persistent,
while those who score low tend to be aimless, unreliable, lazy, care-
less, lax, negligent, weak-willed, and hedonistic (Costa & McCrae, 1985).
A highly conscientious L2 learner would be expected to work harder,
but it is unclear whether this could also affect fluency in the L2.
Wilson (2008) reported that British students who scored higher on
conscientiousness were more likely to complete the French L2 course
successfully at the Open University. Ockey (2011) found that one facet
of conscientiousness, achievement striving, correlated positively with
his learners’ scores for pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary,
and communication skills in the L2.
Ehrman (2008) describes learners who score high on this dimension
as being merciless with themselves, always trying to improve their mas-
tery of the target language. They are also more likely to be strategic
thinkers, using a range of metacognitive strategies (goal-setting, self-
assessment, self-monitoring). They love analysis and enjoy learning
relatively fine distinctions. They also strive to be precise in their use
of words, expressions, and grammar (Ehrman, 2008).
Openness-to-experience
The final ‘Big Five’ dimension to be presented here is openness-to-
experience. This reflects proactive seeking and appreciation of experi-
ence for its own sake as well as a willingness to explore the unfamiliar.
It seems to be a good predictor of foreign language learning achieve-
ment. Individuals who score high on openness-to-experience have wide
interests, and are imaginative and insightful. Those who score low on
this dimension are conventional, down-to-earth, have narrow interests,
are unartistic and unanalytical. Openness-to-experience is significantly
related to intelligence (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Verhoeven and Vermeer
48 Personality
(2002) found that openness-to-experience was linked to the develop-

ment of basic organizational skills involving lexical, syntactic, discourse,
and functional abilities, the acquisition of pragmatic skills and the
development of monitoring strategies among young L2 learners in the
Netherlands. Ehrman (2008) reported that learners who score high on
openness “concentrate on meaning, possibilities, and usually accept
constant change” (p. 66). They typically seek hidden patterns, are
high ability readers, and can pick up native-like ways of self-expression

(p. 66). Openness has also been found to be a significant predictor of fre-
quency of use of English L2 and of self-perceived English L2 proficiency
among Polish immigrants in the UK and Ireland (Ożańska-Ponikwia &
Dewaele, 2012).
The following sections present seven low-order personality traits,
which are often linked to a higher-order dimension but which
explain unique variance, and which have been the focus of SLA
research.
Risk-taking
Communicating in a L2 can be perceived as risky and some learners may
wish to avoid the potential social embarrassment of getting something
wrong. The willingness to take risks depends on the situation; when
peers are listening in, learners may be more anxious about appearing
foolish. They might, however, feel more relaxed in interactions with
teachers and native speakers with whom they are not in competition
(Beebe, 1983). Extraverts are more likely to take risks in using the L2
in class (Ely, 1986, p. 3), possibly also because they tend to be more
optimistic and hence more confident in the positive outcome of their
risk-taking.
Ely (1986) found that learners’ willingness to take risks in using their
L2 was linked significantly to their class participation, which in turn
predicted their proficiency. Risk-takers were more likely to use the L2
in free language use (Ely, 1988). Risk-takers also tend to obtain higher
grades in the L2 (Samimy & Tabuse, 1992). However, one should not
jump prematurely to the conclusion that risk-taking “always create[s]
consistent results for all language learners” (Oxford, 1992). Indeed, it
interacts “in a complex way with other factors – such as anxiety, self-
esteem, motivation, and learning styles – to produce certain effects
in language learning” (p. 30). Reckless risk-taking is unlikely to have
any beneficial effects in foreign language learning, but moderate and
intelligent risk-taking is likely to lead to greater success (Arnold, 1999;
Oxford, 1992).
Tolerance/intolerance of ambiguity
Another lower-order personality trait that has been linked to success
in SLA is tolerance/intolerance of ambiguity. This reflects the way in
which an individual tends to perceive and deal with ambiguous sit-
uations or stimuli (Furnham, 1994). Individuals who are tolerant of
ambiguity do not mind ambiguous situations too much and feel less
anxious in ambiguous situations than individuals at the other end of
the scale. Individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity are less likely

to engage with ambiguous information or stimuli, while individuals
who are more tolerant of ambiguity are less likely to be discouraged.
Rubin (1975), in her seminal paper on the profile of the ‘good language
learner’, pointed out that the “good language learner is . . . comfortable
with uncertainty . . . and willing to try out his guesses” (p. 45). In further
reflections on the topic Rubin speculates that the learners’ realization
that change is an integral part of the language learning process that
makes them more comfortable with uncertainty (Rubin, 2008, p. 11).
Recent research has shown that tolerance of ambiguity accounts for a
large proportion of variance in native listeners’ perceptions and evalua-
tions of foreign accented speech produced by L2 users of a wide variety
of backgrounds (Seravalle, 2011). The knowledge of more languages and
the experience of having lived abroad have been found to be positively
correlated with tolerance for ambiguity (Dewaele & Li Wei, 2011).
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s beliefs in his/her capabilities to per-
form in ways that give him/her some control over events that affect
his/her life (Bandura, 1986). It seems to have a powerful influence on
learners’ effort, tenacity, and achievement (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy
can be influenced by learners’ past experiences, classroom experiences
(encouragement or discouragement), and vicarious experiences.
Some researchers define self-efficacy in a general sense; others have
used more domain-specific or even task-specific definitions, in other
words, your belief in your capability to carry out a particular task. Indi-
viduals can experience feelings of more or less self-efficacy in different
domains or situations.
Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2007) examined the influence of self-
efficacy and other motivational self-beliefs on the achievement of
intermediate French students in US universities. The authors found
that self-efficacy strongly predicted achievement: “Students who per-
ceived themselves as capable of using effective metacognitive strategies
50 Personality
to monitor their academic work time effectively were more apt to

experience academic success in intermediate French” (p. 417).
Hsieh and Kang (2010) investigated the link between Korean learn-
ers’ self-efficacy, attributions, and their test grades in English L2 (see
Hsieh, Chapter 7, this volume). The authors found that learners with
higher levels of self-efficacy attributed their test results to more internal
and personal control factors than those who reported lower self-efficacy
levels. Unsuccessful learners with higher self-efficacy made stronger

personal control attributions than learners with lower self-efficacy.
Foreign language (classroom) anxiety

Foreign language (classroom) anxiety (FLCA) is probably the psycho-
logical variable that has been most frequently included in SLA designs
(see also MacIntyre & Gregersen, Chapter 8, this volume). It has been
defined as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and
behaviours related to classroom learning arising from the uniqueness
of the language learning process” (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986,
p. 128). FLCA affects all foreign language users when they use the
target language, but it is typically highest for speaking (MacIntyre &
Gardner, 1994, p. 284). High levels of FLCA can “freeze” learners, leaving
them unable to produce or even comprehend the foreign language. Not
surprisingly, high levels of FLCA negatively affect learning and perfor-
mance (Horwitz, 2001) and may turn students off from the study of FLs
(Dewaele & Thirtle, 2009). Variation in FLA and FLCA has been linked to
various sociobiographical variables, including the individual’s linguistic
history, knowledge of multiple languages, and current linguistic prac-
tice (Dewaele, 2010a). Quality and quantity of affordances – defined
as the perceived opportunities for action provided for the observer by
an environment (Gibson, 1979) – also seem to affect the way in which
a foreign language learner will judge the difficulty of the road ahead.
In Dewaele (2010b), I operationalized affordances as a total score reflect-
ing the knowledge of languages that are typologically related to the
target language. The hypothesis was that for learners of French, the
knowledge of other Romance languages would create stronger or clearer
affordances. Indeed, participants who had French as an L2 and L3 and
who knew other Romance languages felt significantly more proficient in
French and reported lower levels of FLA. The effect was not significant
for participants with French L1 or French L4, which led me to conclude
that affordances can serve as a crutch at intermediate levels of profi-
ciency, but that this crutch is either superfluous for highly proficient
users or insufficient for beginners (p. 105).
Trait emotional intelligence

One personality trait that has only just started to be included in
SLA research designs is trait emotional intelligence (trait EI) – also called
trait emotional self-efficacy. This is based on the idea that individu-
als differ in the extent to which they attend to, process, and utilize
affect-laden information of an intra-personal or interpersonal nature
(Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008). Trait EI is typically measured via
self-report questionnaires and is located at the lower levels of personal-

ity hierarchies. It correlates negatively with neuroticism, and positively
with extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness.
Recent research has found that high levels of trait EI correlated posi-
tively with frequency of use of English L2 among Poles who had settled
in the UK and Ireland (Ożańska-Ponikwia, 2010). In other words, the
emotionally intelligent participants were more likely to engage in con-
versations in English L2. These findings could be linked to an earlier
study that reported that emotionally intelligent multilinguals are less
anxious when speaking their various languages, including their L1,
probably because of their better ability to gauge the emotional state of
their interlocutor (Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008).
Perfectionism
Progress in SLA is not linear; it is often a messy and dynamic affair,
where progress can be followed by sudden dips. The experience can be
particularly gruelling for perfectionists who would wish to skip the ‘trial
and error’ stage of SLA. Perfectionist L2 learners tend to make slower
progress because the fear of making mistakes hinders their learning.
They are inhibited about classroom participation, unwilling to volunteer
a response to a question unless they are absolutely sure of the correct
answer and they react badly to minor failures (Gregersen & Horwitz,
2002). The authors found that anxious learners were more perfection-
ist, more fearful of evaluation, more concerned about making errors,
set themselves higher personal performance standards, and were more
inclined to procrastinate.
Musicality
There is evidence that L2 learners with music skills may have an advan-
tage in some aspects of SLA. Learners with musical aptitude seem to be
better in distinguishing and producing sounds in the L2, but it had no
effect on syntax or lexical knowledge (Slevc & Miyake, 2006). Nardo and
Reiterer (2009) found strong correlations between musicality and pro-
ductive phonetic talent (as measured by a pronunciation talent score),
52 Personality
as well as the aptitude for grammatical sensitivity. The authors conclude

that “musicality, ideally in the form of a well developed perception abil-
ity together with a good pitch perception ability and an enhanced ability
and liking for singing, are the best ingredients for achieving talent and
expertise in foreign language pronunciation” (p. 238).
A change in perspective: looking at the effect

of SLA on personality

All of the studies reviewed so far have used some personality trait as
a predictor variable, in other words, researchers have investigated the
effect of a particular trait on some linguistic variable reflecting success
in SLA or L2 production. Research in personality psychology also over-
whelmingly uses personality traits as independent variables. It would be
wrong, however, to consider somebody’s personality profile as being set
in stone. Dörnyei (2005) refers to a psychologist, Cooper, who pointed
out that establishing a personality structure (such as the Big Five) is only
one step in the study of individual differences. The “logical subsequent
step is to investigate the development of personality” (p. 14). The per-
sonality of an individual is determined by biological factors related to
hereditary factors but also by environmental factors such as the home
in which the person grew up (p. 14). As applied linguists, we can do little
to investigate the effects of biological factors, but it should be possible
to investigate the effect of environmental factors on the personality of
individuals, including the linguistic and cultural background in which a
person grew up. These changes are most likely to occur among children
and young adolescents whose personality is still malleable.
The potential effect that language learning may have on personal-
ity has been highlighted by Guiora et al. (1975, p. 48): “To speak a
second language authentically is to take on a new identity as with empa-
thy, it is to step into a new and perhaps unfamiliar pair of shoes.”
The authors develop the concept of a language ego in one’s first lan-
guage and the permeability of this ego in the face of an empathetic
relationship with an L2. One could argue that the shift in ego result-
ing from the acquisition of an L2 should be perceptible in scores from
personality questionnaires. However the difference might be too subtle
to catch through a single introspective question. Medved Krajnović and
Juraga (2008) did just that in their study of Croatian advanced learners
of English L2. Their questionnaire included just one general question
on the link between language and personality. Half of the participants
felt that their L2 learning had not influenced their personality; a quar-
ter felt that learning English had changed their personality; and the
remaining participants were undecided.
Dewaele and Van Oudenhoven (2009) carried out a more system-

atic investigation on the link between multilingualism, multicultural-
ism, and scores on five personality traits of young London teenagers
(using the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire developed by Van
Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). Immigrant teenagers were found
to score significantly higher than locally born teenagers on the dimen-
sions of open-mindedness and, marginally, on cultural empathy. How-
ever, they scored significantly higher on neuroticism. Participants who

reported that they were dominant in two languages obtained signifi-
cantly higher scores on the dimensions of open-mindedness, marginally
higher scores on cultural empathy and significantly lower scores on
emotional stability compared with participants who were dominant
in a single language. Multilinguals scored significantly higher on the
dimensions of cultural empathy and open-mindedness, and scored sig-
nificantly lower on the dimension of emotional stability compared with
incipient bilinguals, that is monolingual classroom learners of a second
language.
A follow-up study by Dewaele and Stavans (2012) used a similar
design to investigate variation in the psychological profiles of Israeli
multilinguals. Statistical analyses revealed that participants born in
Israel scored marginally higher on emotional stability compared to
those born abroad. The composition of the family was also found to
have an effect: participants with one immigrant parent (but not two)
scored higher on cultural empathy, openmindedness, and social initia-
tive. Those who had become dominant in Hebrew as a FL scored lower
than L1-dominant participants on emotional stability. Contrary to the
findings in Dewaele and Van Oudenhoven (2009), the number of lan-
guages known by participants was not linked to their personality profile.
One possible explanation for this was that all participants were already
functional bi- or multilinguals. A frequent use of many different lan-
guages was linked to significantly higher scores on cultural empathy
and open-mindedness. We thus concluded that active multicompetence
does affect the personality dimensions that are most likely to be shaped
by environmental factors. In other words, it is not merely the knowledge
of a FL that opens the mind, but it is the active engagement in authentic
interactions with various linguistic and cultural groups.

for pedagogy
Further research is needed on the link between knowledge and use

of multiple languages and personality. One way to do this is through
54 Personality
online web-based questionnaires in order to gather data from a very

large sample of monolinguals, bilinguals, and multilinguals from
around the world. By controlling the number of languages, the way they
were learnt and how frequently they are used, it should be possible to
determine their effect on various personality dimensions. While further
research into independent variables that could be linked to success in
SLA is to be encouraged, it also needs to happen with realistic expecta-
tions: no single factor is a fool-proof predictor of success in SLA and we

need to map out the myriad of – often unquantifiable – factors that are
interlocked.
Does research on personality and SLA have any pedagogical impli-
cations? I personally feel that the implications are limited, because no
single personality trait has been identified that can explain more than
a small proportion of variance in successful SLA. Indeed, learners’ psy-
chological variables interact with each other and with a wide range of
socio-biographical and educational variables. Teachers need to be aware
of different personality types in their classrooms, but since any class-
room will contain a wide variety of personality types, it is impossible for
teachers to cater for specific types. What teachers can do, of course, is
to create a positive emotional environment, work at motivating learn-
ers and help learners to believe that whatever their personality, they are
capable of attaining a high level of proficiency in a FL.
Notes
1. A shorter, 50-item personality inventory is available free of charge online from
the International Personality Item Pool (2001), a public-domain personality
resource (http://ipip.ori.org).
2. Almost no research in SLA has included Agreeableness as an independent
variable, so I will not discuss it here.

Arabski, J., & Wojtaszek, A. (2011). (Eds.) Individual learner differences in SLA.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
The editors have assembled an interesting selection of papers on individual dif-
ferences researchers situated mainly in Eastern and Southern Europe. It covers
some of the background in individual difference research, learner autonomy,
strategy application, experienced learners, phonological attainment, reading
and writing.
Arnold, J. (2011). Attention to affect in language learning. Special issue ‘Focus on

affect in language learning’. Anglistik, 22(1), 11–22.
Jane Arnold is a pioneer in the research on affect in foreign language teaching.

This is a special issue edited by herself and Carmen Fonseca on affective factors
of relevance to language learning and teaching. It investigates their influence
on the development of current language teaching theories and practice.

University Press.
This is an excellent overview of the research on various psychological and
affective dimensions in SLA.

References
Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.
Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 4, 359–373.
Beebe, L. M. (1983). Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. W. Selinger &
M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition
(pp. 311–327). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Carrell, P. L., Prince, M. S., & Astika, G. G. (1996). Personality type and language
learning in an EFL context. Language Learning, 46, 75–99.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2002). Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of
communicative anxiety in L2 and L3 production. The International Journal of
Bilingualism, 6, 23–39.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2007). Predicting language learners’ grades in the L1, L2, L3 and
L4: The effect of some psychological and sociocognitive variables. International
Journal of Multilingualism, 4, 169–197.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2009). Individual differences in Second Language Acquisition.
In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 623–646). Bingley: Emerald.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2010a). Emotions in multiple languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2010b). Multilingualism and affordances: Variation in self-
perceived communicative competence and communicative anxiety in French
L1, L2, L3 and L4. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48, 105–129.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2011). The link between Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety and
Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism among adult bi- and multilinguals.
Unpublished manuscript.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in
applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 49, 509–544.
Dewaele, J. -M., & Pavlenko, A. (2002). Emotion vocabulary in interlanguage.
Language Learning, 52, 265–324.
Dewaele, J. -M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The effects of trait
emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anx-
iety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and
empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58, 911–960.
56 Personality
Dewaele, J. -M., & Regan, V. (2001). The use of colloquial words in advanced
French interlanguage. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 51–68.
Dewaele, J. -M., & Stavans, A. (2012). The effect of immigration, accultur-
ation and multicompetence on personality profiles of Israeli multilinguals.
International Journal of Bilingualism.
Dewaele, J. -M., & Thirtle, H. (2009). Why do some young learners drop For-
eign Languages? A focus on learner-internal variables. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 635–649.
Dewaele, J. -M., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2009). The effect of

multilingualism/multiculturalism on personality: No gain without pain
for third culture kids? International Journal of Multilingualism, 6, 443–459.
Dewaele, J. -M., & Li Wei. (2011). Are multilinguals more tolerant of ambigu-
ity than monolinguals? Paper presented at the International Symposium on
Bilingualism, Oslo.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and
learning environment. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 230–248.
Ehrman, M. (2008). Personality and the good language learner. In C. Griffiths
(Ed.), Lessons from the good language learner (pp. 61–72). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ely, C. M. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and motiva-
tion in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36, 1–25.
Ely, C. M. (1988). Personality: Its impact on attitudes toward classroom activities.
Foreign Language Annals, 21, 25–32.
Furnham, A. (1994). A content correlational and factor analytic study of four
tolerance of ambiguity questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 16,
403–410.
Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism:
Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral
performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 562–570.
Guiora, A., Paluszny, M., Beit-Hallatimi, B., Catford, J., Cooley, R., & Yoder
Dull, C. (1975). Language and person studies in language behavior. Language
Learning, 2, 43–61.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–126.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Hsieh, P. H., & Kang, H. S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their
interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning, 60, 606–627.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (2007). Affective variables, atti-
tude and personality in context. In D. Ayoun (Ed.), French Applied Linguistics
(pp. 270–298). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anx-
iety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44,
283–305.
Medved Krajnović, M., & Juraga, I. (2008). The influence of foreign language
learning on personality. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 53, 349–372.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate
French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning,
57, 417–422.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language
learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nardo, D., & Reiterer, S. M. (2009). Musicality and phonetic language apti-
tude. In G. Dogil & S. M. Reiterer (Eds.), Language talent and brain activity
(pp. 213–256). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Ockey, G. (2011). Self-consciousness and assertiveness as explanatory vari-

ables of L2 oral ability: A latent variable approach. Language Learning, 61,
968–989.
Oxford, R. L. (1992). Who are our students?: A synthesis of foreign and second
language research on individual differences with implications for instructional
practice. TESL Canada Journal, 9, 30–49.
Ożańska-Ponikwia, K. (2010). Emotions from a bilingual point of view: Perception and
expression of emotions in L1 and L2. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Birkbeck,
University of London.
Ożańska-Ponikwia, K., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality and L2 use: The
advantage of being openminded and self-confident in an immigration context.
EUROSLA Yearbook, 12, Stockholm.
Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (2001). Personality: Theory and research (8th ed.).
New York: John Wiley.
Robinson, D., Gabriel, N., & Katchan, O. (1994). Personality and second language
learning. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 143–157.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly,
9, 41–51.
Rubin, J. (2008). Reflections. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language
learners (pp. 10–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Samimy, K. K., & Tabuse, M. (1992). Affective variables and a less commonly
taught language: A study in beginning Japanese classes. Language Learning, 42,
377–398.
Seravalle, V. (2011). Native, non-native and near-native accent; the mediating role of
identity in performance vs perception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Royal
Holloway, University of London.
Slevc, R., & Miyake, A. (2006). Individual differences in second-language
proficiency. Does musical ability matter? Psychological Science, 17,
675–681.
van Daele, S., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Debruyn, L. (2006). The effect of
extraversion on oral L2 proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 213–236.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effec-
tiveness of international students: the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 679–694.
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personal-
ity dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics,
23, 361–374.
Wakamoto, N. (2009). Extroversion/introversion in foreign language learning: Interac-
tions with learner strategy use. Bern: Peter Lang.
Wilson, R. (2008). ‘Another language is another soul’: Individual differences in the
presentation of self in a foreign language. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Birkbeck,
University of London.
5
Motivation: L2 Learning
as a Special Case?
Ema Ushioda

Introduction
Among the psychological constructs implicated in L2 learning, none

has perhaps generated as much literature as motivation. As a field of
inquiry, the study of L2 motivation has a rich history dating back some
50 years to early work on individual differences in language learning.
As Ellis (2008, p. xix) notes, this work pre-dates the establishment of
mainstream second language acquisition (SLA) research in the 1960s.
Motivation is widely recognized as a variable of importance in the L2
learning process, and possibly one of the key factors that distinguishes
first language acquisition from SLA. Put simply, while motivation is not
really an issue in the case of infants acquiring their mother tongue,
being motivated or not can make all the difference to how willingly and
successfully people learn other languages later in life (Ushioda, 2010,
p. 5). Yet we might qualify this observation by noting that motivation is
similarly critical to all forms of conscious and intentional human learn-
ing, and that it has been a major pedagogical and research issue across
the field of education. In this respect, we might ask whether L2 learning
represents a special case in the psychology of learning motivation, giv-
ing rise to distinctive motivation theories and concepts specific to this
domain of learning; or whether L2 motivation can broadly be explained
in terms of general theories of learning motivation.
The answer to this question has changed over the years, and tracing
these changes offers a useful framework for examining past, current,
and future research perspectives on L2 motivation. Simplifying some-
what, we might say that L2 motivation research originated in a focus on
what makes L2 learning distinctive from other forms of learning (1960s–
1990s). Researchers then recognized the need to redress the balance and
58
Ema Ushioda 59
bring L2 motivation theory in line with mainstream motivational psy-

chology (1990s). Since the turn of the century, L2 motivation research
has kept apace with significant developments in mainstream psychol-
ogy, integrating these with theoretical perspectives specific to language
learning. In reality, as we will see, the analysis is more complex than this.
L2 motivation: its distinctive social-psychological nature

As Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p. 39) observe, L2 motivation research
originated largely independently of the broader field of motivation
research in educational psychology, since it was shaped by a concern to
address the unique social, psychological, behavioural and cultural com-
plexities that acquiring a new communication code entails. The field of
inquiry was founded by two social psychologists, Gardner and Lambert
(1959, 1972), working in the bilingual social context of Canada. They
speculated that L2 learning had important social and psychological
dimensions which distinguished the motivation to learn a second lan-
guage from other kinds of learning motivation. In their view, L2 learners
are expected not simply to acquire knowledge of the language but to
identify with the target language community and adopt their distinctive
speech behaviours and styles, or, as Gardner (1979, p. 193) put it, allow
“elements of another culture into one’s own lifespace.” They hypothe-
sized that learners’ attitudes towards the target language community,
as well as their ethnocentric orientation in general, would influence
their motivation to learn the target language. This hypothesis led the
researchers to propose two kinds of motivational orientation in L2 learn-
ing: an integrative orientation “reflecting a sincere and personal interest
in the people and culture represented by the other group”; and an
instrumental orientation, “reflecting the practical value and advantages
of learning a new language” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p. 132). This
theoretical framework effectively set the research agenda for the next
20 years, with much work focused on examining these twin orientations
and their relative impact on motivation and success in L2 learning, not
just in North America but in other social and cultural contexts across the
world such as India (Lukmani, 1972) and Israel (Kraemer, 1993). (For a
meta-analysis of empirical studies, see Masgoret & Gardner, 2003.)
Firmly anchored in a social-psychological paradigm, L2 motiva-
tion research thus evolved independently of the individual-cognitive
perspectives then dominating mainstream motivational psychology.
It developed within a tradition of associated social-psychological
theories of SLA and communication through the 1970s and 1980s.
60 Motivation
This tradition included, for example, Schumann’s (1978) acculturation

model, Clément’s (1980) social context model, and Giles and Byrne’s
(1982) intergroup model, which all focused on L2 learning and use in
situations of interethnic contact in multilingual settings, and involved
a motivational dimension that closely paralleled Gardner and Lambert’s
notion of integrative orientation. At one level, as Dörnyei (2005, p. 67)
comments, this social-psychological analysis of motivation was radically
ahead of its time since socially grounded perspectives did not really

become significant in mainstream motivational psychology until the
1990s. Interestingly, as we will see later, current research perspectives
on L2 motivation have become even more strongly socio-contextually
grounded, though social psychology is no longer the dominant theoret-
ical paradigm.
Linking L2 motivation with motivation in general:

two paradigms of inquiry
At another level, on the other hand, in emphasizing what is distinc-

tive about L2 motivation, the social-psychological tradition inevitably
drew researchers’ attention away from those features which it shares
with motivation in other domains of learning, and which might be
explained by more general theories of motivation. There are two related
but significantly different points to be made here.
First, from a theoretical perspective, it would be surprising indeed
if concepts of motivation that apply to human learning in various
skill and knowledge domains (e.g., mathematics, history, swimming,
painting, teaching, management) did not apply also to the specific
domain of language learning. Thus, well-established concepts in motiva-
tional psychology, such as need for achievement, expectancy of success,
or goal-setting, may usefully inform our analysis of L2 motivation
processes and L2 learner behaviours.
Second, from the perspective of those engaged in learning a language,
it is unlikely that they will experience their motivation for this area
of activity as wholly independent of their motivation (or lack of moti-
vation) for other pursuits or subjects of study. To understand how L2
motivation fits within a person’s overall system of motivational pro-
cesses, behaviours and competing goals and priorities, it is clear that we
must look to broader theories beyond social psychology.
In effect, these two points represent different paradigms of research
inquiry – the first focusing on what general motivation theories and
concepts we can draw on to explain L2 motivation, and the second
Ema Ushioda 61
focusing on how we can theorize L2 motivation within an overall

complex dynamic system. By this we mean an evolving system contain-
ing multiple interconnected components, whose adaptive behaviour
emerges organically from the interactions of these components. Follow-
ing its distinctive social-psychological origins, L2 motivation research
can be viewed as evolving through these two paradigms in succession,
and in some senses moving from a position of ‘catching up’ with moti-
vation research in mainstream psychology, to a position of engaging

closely with and leading debate on current significant developments in
this broader field.
Let us look briefly at the interim ‘catching up’ phase before focusing
on the current picture.
Looking beyond social-psychological perspectives
The social-psychological hold on the L2 motivation field began to

loosen its grip in the early 1990s. A seminal position paper by Crookes
and Schmidt (1991) critiquing the social-psychological tradition her-
alded an important series of discussion papers published in The Mod-
ern Language Journal in 1994. These discussions (e.g., Dörnyei, 1994;
Oxford & Shearin, 1994) called for a significant broadening of the
research agenda to consider cognitive theories of motivation that
had wide currency in education and other branches of psychology.
As Ushioda and Dörnyei (2012) note, the ensuing phase of L2 moti-
vation research also brought about a shift in focus from the broad
macro perspective of ethnolinguistic communities and L2 learners’ gen-
eral motivational dispositions, to a more situated analysis of motivation
in specific instructional settings.
Central to Crookes and Schmidt’s (1991) critique of the social-
psychological perspective on L2 motivation had been the argument that
it lacked practical relevance for teachers. While integrative and instru-
mental motivational dispositions may be important in determining
basic learning goals and language choice, they are insufficient to explain
ongoing processes of motivation shaping learning, particularly in class-
room contexts where L2 learning is compulsory and learners have no
choice and may be poorly motivated. Drawing on insights from moti-
vation research in educational psychology, L2 motivation scholars thus
turned their attention to key motivational cognitions that can explain
learner behaviours in the classroom and that, importantly, were more
amenable to pedagogical influence than social-psychological attitudes.
Motivational cognitions refer to the kinds of beliefs, self-perceptions,
62 Motivation
and thinking patterns that affect students’ engagement in (or disengage-

ment from) learning, such as the goals they bring to the classroom (e.g.,
develop skills and knowledge, please the teacher, outperform others),
or their internal explanations for poor performance outcomes (e.g., low
ability, insufficient effort, task difficulty). Attention was also focused on
the range of factors that may affect individual motivational cognitions,
including learner-internal as well as social and situational factors. Two
comprehensive theoretical frameworks were developed in the 1990s that

sought to capture these individual cognitions and internal and con-
textual factors relevant to L2 learning motivation – Dörnyei’s (1994)
three-level framework of L2 motivation, and Williams and Burden’s
(1997) social constructivist framework of L2 motivation.
Dörnyei’s framework analysed L2 motivation in terms of three lev-
els: language level (integrative and instrumental motivational subsys-
tems); learner level (individual motivational characteristics such as
self-confidence and need for achievement); and learning situation level
(situation-specific motives relating to the course and social learning
environment). Williams and Burden’s framework classified the internal
and external factors shaping L2 motivation. Internal factors include, for
example, intrinsic interest, sense of agency, perceptions of success and
failure; while external factors include interactions with significant oth-
ers and, features of the immediate learning environment, as well as the
broader social and cultural context. These two comprehensive L2 moti-
vation frameworks proved influential in the field and offered a valuable
reference point for pursuing specific areas of research inquiry through
the 1990s and the turn of the century (for a review, see Dörnyei &
Ushioda, 2011, pp. 49–60).
While space does not permit analysis of specific areas of research
inquiry during this interim period, I would like to conclude this section
by making three important points.
First, looking beyond social-psychological perspectives did not mean
abandoning these original perspectives. Dörnyei’s (1994) three-level
framework retained the integrative and instrumental motivation con-
cepts, while social-psychological attitudes to the target language com-
munity and culture featured among the learner-internal factors in
Williams and Burden’s (1997) framework. At some level and in some
contexts, therefore, these traditional L2 motivation concepts continued
to have explanatory significance and, more importantly, could be inte-
grated meaningfully with the newly adopted concepts of motivation,
such as self-efficacy (i.e., perceived ability to perform particular tasks;
see Tremblay & Gardner, 1995), or intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Ema Ushioda 63
(i.e., engaging in an activity as a pleasurable end in itself, or as a

means to a separable outcome or reward; see Noels, Pelletier, Clément, &
Vallerand, 2000).
Second, as explained earlier, these newly adopted motivation con-
cepts represent particular cognitions affecting motivated engagement
in learning, such as goals, expectancies, beliefs, self-perceptions, and
evaluations of success and failure experiences (i.e., attributions). Clearly,
such learner cognitions constitute significant areas of research inquiry in

themselves, as attested by several chapters in this volume (e.g., Hsieh,
Chapter 7, on attributions; Mercer, Chapter 2, on self-concept; Ryan &
Mercer, Chapter 6, on mindsets).
In this connection, the third point to be made is that it is clearly dif-
ficult to separate the analysis of motivation from these other areas of
research inquiry on learner cognitions, as well as associated affective
processes or emotions (see MacIntyre & Gregersen, Chapter 8, this
volume), and social influences and dynamics (see Murphey et al.,
Chapter 15, this volume). Moreover, it is rather limiting to isolate
motivation in time and to classify individuals according to particu-
lar motivational labels (e.g., intrinsically versus extrinsically motivated
learners), given the extended process of learning a language and the
unstable evolving nature of motivation during this learning process.
To understand how L2 motivation fits within the person’s overall sys-
tem of cognitions, emotions, interactions and experiences over time, we
need to look beyond not just social psychology but also cognitive the-
ories of motivation, and adopt a rather more holistic perspective that
takes account of these dynamically interacting complexities. As noted
earlier, this moves us into the current paradigm now shaping research
in L2 motivation and to which we now turn.
L2 motivation as part of a complex system:

self and context
To summarize briefly so far, I began this chapter by asking whether

L2 motivation can broadly be explained in terms of general theories
of motivation, or whether L2 learning represents a special case in the
psychology of learning motivation, necessitating distinctive motivation
theories and concepts specific to this domain of learning. As we move to
consider current thinking in the field, however, we find that this inquiry
becomes reframed as a different question: How does L2 motivation fit
within a person’s overall complex system of motivation, behaviours,
interactions, and experiences?
64 Motivation
A key change to note here is the shift in conceptual focus from

‘L2 learner’ to ‘person’. What this shift signals is a move to a holis-
tic perspective on the individual person who is engaged in the L2
learning process, and who is necessarily situated in a particular tem-
poral, social and physical context. This perspective contrasts with the
abstract notion of the L2 learner, conceptualized as a theoretical bundle
of variables (e.g., the integratively motivated L2 learner, or the intrin-
sically motivated L2 learner with high self-efficacy), or conceptualized

as generalized (and essentialized) types of learner (e.g., exam-oriented
Chinese learners of English). Of course, the degree to which research
attention has switched from abstract ‘L2 learners’ to real ‘persons-in-
context’ is open to question, given the continuing need to develop
generalizable insights and theoretical models (for fuller discussion, see
Ushioda, 2009). Nevertheless, the paradigm shift towards a more inte-
grated analysis of L2 motivation, self, and context is a significant aspect
of current thinking, and mirrors similar concerns in contemporary the-
ories of motivation in mainstream psychology. In the sub-sections to
follow, I will first consider concepts of self in relation to motivation,
and then discuss current perspectives on integrating motivation, self
and context.
Motivation and self

Since the turn of the century, as Pajares and Schunk (2002) observe,
concepts of ‘self’ have come to dominate research on academic moti-
vation in education, as reflected in motivation concepts such as
self-efficacy, self-belief, self-worth, self-esteem, self-determination and
self-regulation. This self-related focus has similarly become common
to motivational psychology more broadly (e.g., self-determination and
self-regulation of behaviour in areas of life such as health, work,
and emotions; see, e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2002), and places self-concept
and associated self-perceptions and sense of personal agency at the
core of human motivation (in relation to self-concept, see also Mercer,
Chapter 2, this volume).
In recent years, an influential strand of inquiry has developed around
the future-oriented dimension of the self-concept (e.g., Hoyle & Sherrill,
2006; Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006; Murphey et al., Chapter 15, this
volume). This strand of inquiry is based on the psychological notion of
possible selves, originally defined by Markus and Nurius (1986) as repre-
senting people’s ideas of what they might become, what they would like
to become, and what they are afraid of becoming. Possible selves thus
constitute future-oriented aspects of the self-concept and can function
Ema Ushioda 65
as self-guides which channel and give direction to current motivational

behaviours, as individuals strive to achieve their desired future self-
images (e.g., as a successful entrepreneur) or to avoid feared self-images
(e.g., as a school drop-out). Of course, not all types of possible or imag-
ined selves will channel motivation, and those which represent ‘ideal’
future self-images are more likely to energize motivation because of
our natural psychological desire to reduce the discrepancy between our
current and ideal selves (Higgins, 1987).

In the L2 motivation field, these future-oriented aspects of the self-
concept have come to reshape our understanding of the traditional
social-psychological notions of integrative and instrumental orienta-
tion. A key construct in Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009a) recently developed L2
Motivational Self System is the ideal L2 self, defined as the L2-specific
dimension of one’s ideal future self-representation, whereby motiva-
tion is shaped by aspirations towards desirable future images of oneself
as a proficient L2 user. The ideal L2 self is thus theorized to subsume
integrative motives (traditionally defined in terms of identification with
external reference groups) as well as internalized forms of instrumental
motivation, depending on whether our ideal L2 self is associated with
social, personal or professional contexts of L2 use. Less internally driven
is the ought-to L2 self, which corresponds to more externally regulated
types of instrumental motivation such as studying the L2 hard in order
not to fail an exam or disappoint one’s parents.
By theorizing L2 motivation in the context of future possible
selves, Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System thus reframes tradi-
tionally defined motivational goals (integrative or instrumental) as
future-oriented dimensions of the self-concept – that is, in terms of
how one sees oneself in the future. In other words, L2 motivation is
explained with reference to the person’s future self-representations in
life, rather than with reference only to the individual’s learning process,
behaviours, and outcomes as an L2 learner, as in traditional analyses
of L2 motivation. In short, the theoretical boundaries of L2 motivation
research have expanded considerably not only to look beyond social-
psychological or cognitive theories of motivation, but to look beyond
the L2 learner self to the person’s motivational self-systems as a whole,
and their associated cognitive, behavioural and affective processes.
Motivation, self and context

In taking this broader holistic perspective, however, L2 motivation
research must further expand its theoretical boundaries to find ways of
capturing the dynamic interaction between self and context. Unlike the
66 Motivation
abstract L2 learner or generalized L2 learner types, people engaged in

language learning are not only uniquely individual, but are also nec-
essarily located in particular temporal, situational, and social contexts
that contribute to shaping their motivation and their developing self-
systems, and which they actively shape through their behaviours and
interactions (Ushioda, 2009). In the L2 motivation field as in the field
of contemporary motivational psychology, a key issue now emerging is
how to integrate the self and context in the analysis of motivation, and

to explore how motivation develops and emerges through the complex
reciprocal interactions between self and context (e.g., Järvelä, Volet, &
Järvenoja, 2010; Turner, 2001).
Engaging with wider debates in SLA (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007)
and applied linguistics (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) as well as
across the social sciences, L2 motivation research is currently seeking to
address this issue by moving towards complexity theory and dynamic
systems approaches. Originating in the fields of mathematics, biology
and the physical sciences, such approaches concern the behaviour of
complex systems that contain multiple interconnected components,
where development is characterized by non-linear growth as systems
adapt and evolve organically in response to contextual processes, and
in ways that contribute to shaping context. In terms of how we might
conceptualize L2 motivation within a dynamic systems perspective, at
one level it is clear that it becomes just one element in a complex evolv-
ing system of multiple interacting elements. As Dörnyei (2009b) argues,
this dynamic systems perspective on SLA processes renders the notion
of discrete individual difference variables (such as motivation) rather
meaningless, since processes of motivation, cognition and emotion and
their constituent components interact with one another and the devel-
oping context, thereby changing and causing change in non-linear and
unpredictable ways, as the system as a whole restructures, adapts and
evolves. At another level, however, as I have argued elsewhere (Ushioda,
2010), it seems likely that the analysis of motivation may play a major
role in any dynamic systems perspective on L2 learning, given the
need to consider processes of human agency, intentionality and reflex-
ivity that are fundamental to the interactions between self and context
(Sealey & Carter, 2004).
In short, returning to the reframed question that began this section
(How does L2 motivation fit within a person’s overall complex system
of motivation, behaviours, interactions and experiences?), we might say
that current perspectives:
Ema Ushioda 67
• analyse L2 motivation with reference to a person’s motivational self-

systems and future self-representations as a whole;
• highlight the significant role of L2 motivation in the dynamic
interactions between self and context.
Researching L2 motivation: overview and an example
In shifting the theoretical focus from ‘L2 learners’ in the abstract to

‘persons’ located in particular temporal, situational and social con-
texts, it is clear that the research methodologies we adopt should take
account of the individuality of our research participants and the specific
socio-historical and interactional contexts in which they are situated.
This sharply focused, contextualized and individualized perspective
goes against the grain of the traditional quantitative methodologies
that have dominated L2 motivation research and that seek to develop
generalizable insights.
A quantitative research history

This traditional quantitative approach reflects the research heritage
of the broader disciplines of social psychology and cognitive motiva-
tional psychology which, as seen earlier, have shaped the evolution
of L2 motivation research. Motivation research has generally relied on
questionnaire instruments to gather measures of students’ self-reported
attitudes, feelings, goals, intentions, and behaviours. These motiva-
tion measures are then entered into statistical analyses to examine
relationships with other variables and learning outcomes.
As Ushioda and Dörnyei (2012) observe, the strengths of this
approach include methodological rigour and systematicity in data-
gathering and statistical analysis, as well as comparability and
replicability of data, and generalizability to wider populations. In the
L2 motivation field in particular, considerable attention has been
paid to constructing rigorous measurement instruments with robust
psychometric properties, as typified in the standardized Attitude/
Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) developed by Gardner and his associates
(Gardner, 1985). The psychometric design principles of the original
AMTB have been applied to the development of measures of cogni-
tive motivation constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, Tremblay & Gardner, 1995;
intrinsic and extrinsic orientations, Noels et al., 2000), and measures of
the new constructs of future possible selves (MacIntyre, Mackinnon, &
Clément, 2009; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009).
68 Motivation
In short, current research that seeks to investigate and empirically

validate these new self-related motivation constructs continues to sus-
tain the prevailing methodological paradigm. However, as Ushioda and
Chen (2011) argue, a more qualitative research approach may be needed
to explore an area of human experience as individual, complex and
locally grounded as how one sees oneself now and imagines oneself in
the future. Possible selves imply individual subjective experience and
perception, and the extent to which this individuality can be mean-

ingfully captured through a quantitative measurement instrument that
pre-defines respondent options seems questionable.
Illustrating a qualitative research approach

Having long championed a qualitative approach to researching L2 moti-
vation (Ushioda, 1994, 2001, 2009), I would like to sketch an approach
I am currently working on that tries to capture how motivation develops
through and shapes interactions among persons in a specific con-
text. To date, qualitative studies of L2 motivation or mixed methods
studies that incorporate qualitative methods have generally relied on
exploratory interviews as the qualitative research tool (e.g., Lamb, 2004;
Ushioda, 2001; Williams & Burden, 1999). While interview methods
allow for much deeper individual perspectives to emerge than question-
naire methods, the interview context and interactions are necessarily
different and disconnected from the research participant’s L2 learning
context and interactions. Our understanding of how motivation evolves
at the actual site of L2 learning is limited to what our research partici-
pant can usefully tell us (and perhaps rationalize retrospectively) about
certain L2 learning experiences and events, in response to our probing
questions.
To try to capture a more in situ analysis of motivation, we need to
capture (i.e., record) the contextualized event under focus – for exam-
ple, a whole lesson, a critical episode in a lesson, students’ interactions
in a pair work task, a group presentation or, a one-to-one feedback
tutorial. Through a detailed multimodal analysis of the event (e.g.,
discourse, non-verbal interactions and behaviours, silences, lesson mate-
rials, task design, off-task interactions and behaviours), we can develop
our interpretative perspective (informed by our theoretical and analyt-
ical insights) on processes of motivation shaping and shaped by the
event and the interactions and behaviours of its central participants.
Our interpretative analysis might then be integrated with participants’
(i.e., teachers’ and students’) own retrospective analyses through stimu-
lated recall interviews in which they are invited to watch and comment
Ema Ushioda 69
on the recorded episode. This kind of multimodal and multidimen-

sional analysis has rich potential to uncover the moment-by-moment
complexities of motivational processes at work in the L2 classroom.
In my own research-in-progress with colleagues, for example, we are
focusing on teacher–student interactions in relation to feedback on
writing, and examining how processes of motivation shape and are
shaped by these interactions. Our research context is the UK higher edu-
cation setting, which has a diverse international student population,

and where recent nationwide surveys (http://www.thestudentsurvey.
com) have highlighted assessment feedback as a perceived area of
dissatisfaction among students. For international students whose first
language is not English and who, despite meeting English language
entry requirements, may find academic writing challenging, the role
of feedback assumes particular importance in helping or not helping
them to improve their writing skills. Yet while students may expect or
desire specific advice on how to improve their writing, academic sub-
ject tutors may not feel it is within their brief to provide such advice,
beyond offering rather general comments such as “you need to pol-
ish your use of English” or “written expression is rather awkward and
stilted”. They may expect students to identify their own specific lan-
guage and writing problems and find ways of addressing these, or to
have recourse to in-sessional language support. The feedback process
may thus be beset by underlying tensions between conflicting expecta-
tions, needs and agendas. In addition, as our initial explorations suggest,
cross-cultural factors may contribute to differing beliefs and expecta-
tions about the nature and function of feedback (e.g., whether positive
comments and encouragement are perceived as motivationally impor-
tant, or whether negative informational feedback is valued or even
preferred). Cross-cultural factors may also contribute to varying percep-
tions of and affective responses to feedback discourse (e.g., evaluative
comments such as “it’s a pity” or “what a shame” may have a strong
impact on some students’ self-concept).
By focusing on the assessment feedback event within the broader
context of teaching–learning, and by examining this individual event
from multiple perspectives, we are endeavouring to capture a dynamic
analysis of how processes of motivation evolve. The multiple perspec-
tives under analysis include the following: students’ assessed writing,
associated feedback comments from academic tutors, and recorded face-
to-face tutorial interactions, as well as tutors’ and students’ perceptions
of these events. These perceptions are being captured through stim-
ulated recall interviews using tutorial recordings and tutors’ written
70 Motivation
feedback comments as focuses for individual discussion with partici-

pants. We aim to explore how motivation is constructed and construed
in the written and oral interactions between tutors and students in
relation to their respective feedback expectations and agendas, and the
affective and behavioural responses evoked during the feedback process
as well as after the event, for both students and tutors.
Although it is too early in the research process to report any detailed
findings, our initial explorations suggest that the motivational impact

of the assessment feedback process depends in large part on the par-
ticular orientation which individual students bring to this process, and
the degree to which tutors are sensitive towards and respond to this
agenda. For instance, students may simply be looking for reassurance
or encouragement, or want an evaluation of their strengths and weak-
nesses, or be anxious to improve their writing as much as possible.
Thus, for example, encouraging remarks by tutors may be perceived
as motivating for some students but as frustratingly uninformative
for others.
Future directions for research and considerations for pedagogy

Surprisingly, perhaps, the kind of richly grounded in situ analysis I have
sketched here remains rare in the L2 motivation field, given the pre-
ponderance of questionnaire- and interview-based studies where moti-
vation processes and experiences are largely filtered through self-report
data, with minimal use of observation data (though see Guilloteaux &
Dörnyei, 2008). While self-report perspectives will continue to have
importance in researching motivational self-concepts and future pos-
sible selves, a clear direction for future research must be an empirical
focus on the dynamic and interactive contexts through which motiva-
tion processes evolve, and which contribute to shaping more long-term
motivational trajectories (i.e., future possible selves).
This contextual focus clearly has implications for pedagogy – that is,
for our understanding of how teachers’ instructional and interactional
practices may contribute to shaping processes of motivation in their
classrooms. Current conceptions of L2 motivation point to a significant
role for teachers as principal orchestrators of the learning context, as key
interactants in the complex dynamics integrating self-and-context, and
as significant socializers of students’ future possible selves (Dörnyei &
Ushioda, 2011). Thus, a key implication for classroom practice is to
raise teachers’ awareness of their critical role in this regard. Yet under-
standing how this role contributes to shaping processes of motivation
calls for contextually grounded classroom research. In short, exploring
Ema Ushioda 71
research and practice in classrooms can undoubtedly help further refine

our understandings and theoretical conceptions.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2
self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
This volume brings together key conceptual and empirical papers which

address the current re-theorizing of L2 motivation in relation to concepts of
self and identity. The volume also includes the most extensive account of
Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.).
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
This book provides a comprehensive updated overview of L2 motivation
theory, research and practice. It also illustrates approaches to researching
motivation and provides sample questionnaire tools.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
This authoritative resource offers a comprehensive introduction to motivation
in education. The authors provide accessible accounts of theory, overviews of
research, illustrative vignettes, and questions for discussion and exploration.
References
Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a sec-
ond language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social
psychological perspectives (pp. 147–154). Oxford: Pergamon.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach
to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research.
Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language class-
room. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–284.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009a). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda
(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009b). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics
and learning environment. In N. C. Ellis & D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Language
as a complex adaptive system (pp. 237–255). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
72 Motivation
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gardner, R. C. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second language acqui-
sition. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology
(pp. 193–220). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second
language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Giles, H., & Byrne, J. L. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language
acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17–40.
Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners:
A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on
student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55–77.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psycholog-
ical Review, 94, 319–340.
Hoyle, R. H., & Sherrill, M. R. (2006). Future orientation in the self-system:
Possible selves, self-regulation, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 74,
1673–1696.
Järvelä, S., Volet, S. E., & Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collab-
orative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining
individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45, 15–27.
Kraemer, R. (1993). Social psychological factors related to the study of Ara-
bic among Israeli high school students: A test of Gardner’s socio-educational
model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 83–105.
Lamb, M. (2004). Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32, 3–19.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language
Learning, 22, 261–273.
MacIntyre, P., Mackinnon, S., & Clément, R. (2009). Toward the development of
a scale to assess possible selves as a source of language learning motivation.
In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
(pp. 193–214). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41,
954–969.
Masgoret, A. -M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second
language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and his
associates. Language Learning, 53(Suppl. 1), 167–210.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you
learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination
theory. Language Learning, 50, 57–85.
Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12–28.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic out-
comes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91, 188–204.
Ema Ushioda 73
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-belief in psychology and
education: A historical perspective. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic
achievement: Impact of psychological factors of education (pp. 3–21). New York:
Academic Press.
Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self
and Japanese learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation,
language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120–143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Schumann, J. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition.
In R. Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching

(pp. 27–107). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London:
Continuum.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System
among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study.
In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in
language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 505–520.
Turner, J. C. (2001). Using context to enrich and challenge our understanding
of motivation theory. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning con-
texts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 85–104). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Ushioda, E. (1994). L2 motivation as a qualitative construct. Teanga, 14, 76–84.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of moti-
vational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second
language acquisition (pp. 93–125). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Ushioda, E. (2010). Motivation and SLA. EUROSLA Yearbook, 10, 5–20.
Ushioda, E., & Chen, S. -A. (2011). Researching motivation and possible selves
among learners of English: The need to integrate qualitative inquiry. Anglistik:
International Journal of English Studies (Focus issue on affect and language learning),
22, 43–61.
Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Motivation. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 396–409). Abingdon: Routledge.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1999). Students’ developing conceptions of
themselves as language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 193–201.
6
Implicit Theories: Language
Learning Mindsets
Stephen Ryan and Sarah Mercer

Introduction
Implicit theories (or mindsets) refer to the fundamental, core beliefs

that individuals hold about the nature and malleability of vari-
ous aspects of the human condition. Our specific interest is with
implicit theories relating to intelligence or ability, as these beliefs
affect approaches to learning and have been shown to connect to
motivation (see Ushioda, Chapter 5, this volume), attributions (Hsieh,
Chapter 7, this volume), goals (Woodrow, Chapter 13, this volume),
strategies (Cohen, Chapter 10, this volume), and self-concept (Mercer,
Chapter 2, this volume). While mindsets have been the focus of
an increasing number of studies within psychology, they remain
an under-researched construct in the domain of foreign language
learning.
In this chapter, we aim to provide an overview of research into
mindsets and in doing so illustrate the value of a framework that seeks
to explain how psychological variables connect, as opposed to treating
individual variables in isolation. Employing Dweck’s (1999) central the-
oretical model as a base for our discussion, we also hope to make the
case for a more enthusiastic adoption of the mindsets framework within
the field of language education.
Overview of the literature
In this section, we discuss the literature relating to mindsets. First, we

consider how the concept has been developed in mainstream psychol-
ogy, and then we examine how it can be applied to the field of language
learning.
74
Stephen Ryan and Sarah Mercer 75
Implicit theories in psychology

The origins of implicit theories can be traced back to Kelly’s (1955) work
on personal constructs, which considered the role of lay theories – the
beliefs that people use in their everyday lives – and how they affect
individuals’ perceptions of the self and of others. Within educational
psychology, the challenge of exploring how these theories can be under-
stood as part of a comprehensive theory of learning has been taken up
by the American psychologist Carol Dweck and numerous associates

(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997;
Dweck, 1999, 2006; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Dweck & Molden,
2007; Hong et al., 1999). Since “people’s theories are largely implicit or
poorly articulated” (Dweck et al., 1995, p. 267), the psychology literature
tends to refer to these lay theories as ‘implicit theories.’ Dweck (1999)
identifies two principal sets of implicit theories: an entity theory and an
incremental theory. A person holding an entity theory of intelligence
is likely to believe that an individual’s intelligence is a fixed quantity.
In contrast, a person subscribing to an incremental theory believes that
people have the capacity to develop their intelligence. Dweck (2006)
also uses the more accessible term ‘mindsets’ and the implicit theories
outlined above correspond to two mindsets: a fixed mindset, a belief in
the fixed nature of ability or intelligence, which is consistent with an
entity theory, and a growth mindset, equivalent to an incremental the-
ory. We have chosen to adopt the mindsets nomenclature as we have
found it to be more readily understood by a wider audience and feel
that it better captures the comprehensive and pervasive nature of the
construct. As Dweck (2006, p. 209) explains: “Mindsets frame the run-
ning account that’s taking place in people’s heads. They guide the whole
interpretation process.”
The relationship between the two types of mindsets reveals some-
thing of a tension, or even an inconsistency, within the literature.
On the one hand, there is a tendency to imply an almost irrecon-
cilable chasm between the two mindsets, ‘a world from two perspec-
tives’ (Dweck et al., 1995), yet there also appears to be a consensus
warning against assuming a simplistic dichotomy. Murphy and Dweck
(2010, p. 283) stress that, “people find both entity and incremen-
tal views of intelligence plausible: however, they tend to personally
endorse one theory more chronically than the other.” This suggests
that it may be more productive to conceive of mindsets as a contin-
uum with most people lying at some point between the two extreme
positions.
76 Implicit Theories
Links to other psychological variables

A significant feature of the mindsets framework is how it connects to
a range of other key psychological variables, and Dweck’s motivational
model of achievement (Dweck, 1999) illustrates some of the intercon-
nections between mindsets, self-efficacy, attributions, and patterns of
motivation. The model predicts that a growth mindset can mitigate the
impact of low self-efficacy, since individuals holding a growth mindset
believe that their abilities can be increased through effort and prac-

tice. As a result, they are more likely to be motivated to seek out
challenges and look for opportunities to learn through the adoption
of learning-oriented goals. They have also been shown to experience
more positive emotions and make more adaptive attributions for poor
performance that contribute to higher expectations for the future, in
turn enhancing motivation (see Hsieh, Chapter 7, this volume). Numer-
ous studies have provided empirical support for a link between implicit
theories and patterns of motivation (see Dupreyat & Mariné, 2005;
Ommundsen, 2001; Rhodewalt, 1994). As Chen and Pajares (2010, p. 75)
note, “implicit theories have been shown to be related to so many
motivational constructs.”
One key area of research (Baird et al., 2009; Dweck & Leggett, 1988)
explores the links between people’s mindsets and their goal orienta-
tions (see Woodrow, Chapter 13, this volume). It has been shown that
people’s mindsets tend to lead them to pursue different types of goals,
with a fixed mindset being strongly associated with performance goals
in which the objective is to demonstrate and prove one’s ability, and
a growth mindset with learning or mastery goals, where the aim is
to develop and improve one’s ability (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). How-
ever, these relationships are again more than a simple, neat dichotomy;
individuals’ goal orientations can be complex and the relationship
between mindsets and goals can be mediated by other factors such as
self-efficacy and attributions (Baird et al., 2009; Leondari & Gialamas,
2002).
It was research into attributions (Dweck, 1975) that first triggered
interest in mindsets. When individuals attribute their successes and
failures to abilities that they believe to be fixed, the consequence is help-
lessness; the challenge for psychologists has been to understand and
counter these feelings of helplessness. Hong et al. (1999) found that
entity theorists were likely to attribute poor performance to a lack of
ability, whereas incremental theorists were more likely to attribute neg-
ative outcomes to insufficient effort. In a recent study of young people
with learning difficulties, Baird et al. (2009) concluded that theories of
intelligence were strongly connected with learners’ effort attributions,

leading those with fixed mindsets to be more likely to interpret exertion
of effort as a sign of limited ability.
Within psychology as a whole, there is a strong tendency for
researchers to isolate and analyse discrete variables. However, Robins
and Pals (2002, p. 315) make a powerful case when they argue that the
mindsets model represents “the interrelations among a set of variables
that work together as a motivational and self-regulatory system, and

is thus more appropriately tested in its entirety than in a piecemeal
fashion.” Mindsets are probably best understood as part of a network
of beliefs and self-regulatory processes linking a range of psychological
variables that have traditionally been considered in isolation.
Mindsets in education
A central characteristic of mindsets is their domain-specific nature. This
means that, as Dweck et al. (1995, p. 269) argue, “people need not have
one sweeping theory that cuts across all human attributes.” Individu-
als may hold different mindsets for different areas of their lives, such
as intelligence, creativity, athletic ability, relationships, or personality.
Although there is likely to be some interaction between domains, these
mindsets can operate relatively independently of each other. It may be
possible, for example, for someone to hold a strong fixed mindset in the
domain of music, believing that musical abilities depend on an innate
gift for music, while holding a strong growth mindset with regard to
physical or athletic ability, believing that success is possible for anyone
prepared to put in the requisite effort and practice.
Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of mindsets for
educators is their potential for change. Several studies have shown that
despite their deep-rooted nature, mindsets are dynamic and that inter-
ventions can lead to changes in a person’s mindset and motivation (see
Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). For
example, in a study with children in New York, Blackwell et al. (2007)
carried out an intervention study where pupils took part in a series of
workshops in which they learnt about the brain and were taught that
intelligence is malleable. They found that not only did the pupils’ grades
improve, but their motivation was also enhanced.
Pedagogic interventions designed to foster growth mindsets in learn-
ers have clear echoes in Feuerstein’s theories of structural cogni-
tive modifiability and mediated learning experience (Feuerstein, 1990;
Feuerstein & Feuerstein, 1991). The essential premise of Feuerstein’s
theories is that intelligence is not fixed, that it can be modified and
developed through appropriate mediation. This is defined as “an inten-

tional interaction with the learner, the purpose of which is to enhance
the learner’s understanding beyond the immediate experience and to
help the learner to apply what is learned in broader contexts – goals that
often go beyond the simple transmission of knowledge” (Feuerstein,
Feuerstein, & Falik, 2010, p. xviii). This distinction between mediation
and teaching, the transmission of knowledge and skills, is an important
one that remains unexplored in language education and demands more

serious consideration (see Williams & Burden, 1997).
Implicit theories in language learning

Mindsets have been examined in domains where natural or innate talent
is popularly believed to be essential to success, such as music and sport
(Martin, 2008; Ommundsen, 2001). However, despite the widespread
perception (see Graham, 2002; Mori, 1999) of a ‘natural,’ innate aptitude
for language learning, very little attention has been paid to the role of
implicit theories within the field of applied linguistics.
Perhaps the most closely related line of inquiry within second lan-
guage acquisition (SLA) can be found in the literature examining learner
beliefs (Cotterall, 1999; Horwitz, 1998; Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003; White,
2008). Underlying much of this research is the understanding that
learner beliefs are “important because learners hold their beliefs to be
true and these beliefs then guide how they interpret their experiences
and how they behave” (Wenden, 1998, p. 517). One influential study
that paved the way for a consideration of mindsets in language learn-
ing was Mori’s (1999) investigation of the epistemological beliefs of
language learners – their beliefs about the nature of knowledge and
learning. One of the immediately relevant findings of Mori’s study
was that “a strong belief in innate ability is associated with lower
achievement. This suggests that if students perceive their own ability
as a controllable, increasable entity, they have better chances to attain
higher proficiency” (Mori, 1999, p. 408).
Unfortunately, research focusing explicitly on mindsets within lan-
guage learning has been rare. In our own work (Mercer & Ryan, 2010;
Ryan & Mercer, 2011), we have adapted Dweck’s basic distinction
between fixed and growth mindsets to describe two language learning
mindsets. A fixed language learning mindset describes a person who
believes that successful language learning is attributable to natural tal-
ent or an innate ability that cannot be changed. Someone who believes
that language learning abilities can be developed as a result of effort,
dedicated practice and hard work is said to hold a growth language

learning mindset.
Noting some of the warnings about the dangers of importing con-
structs from psychology into SLA in an inappropriate manner (Dewaele,
2005; Dörnyei, 2005), we have attempted to remain sensitive to the par-
ticular needs of language learning. For example, our initial exploratory
research suggested that language learners may hold different mindsets
for different language skill areas (Mercer & Ryan, 2010). In other words,

an individual may simultaneously hold a strongly fixed mindset for
something such as pronunciation, believing that excellent pronuncia-
tion can only come to those with a ‘natural gift,’ while holding a growth
mindset for another skill, such as writing.
An additional caveat emerging from our initial studies concerns the
cultural or contextual base of mindsets. Various psychologists have
already drawn attention to the need for research to consider differing
understandings of constructs and beliefs systems across cultural sys-
tems (see Heine et al., 2001; Lockhart, Nakashima, Inagaki, & Keil,
2008; Norenzayan & Heine, 2005). Our own small-scale cross-cultural
work has highlighted the need for research to be conducted in context-
sensitive ways and this parallels findings from mainstream psychology,
such as those of Murphy and Dweck (2010), who, in a study of mindsets
within different organizational contexts, found that mindsets may exist
and function even at an institutional level.
Researching implicit theories
Within mainstream psychology, most research investigating mindsets

has been conducted using quantitative questionnaire instruments, such
as Dweck’s Implicit Theories questionnaire (Dweck, 1999), or employ-
ing various adaptations of this instrument (see Chen & Pajares, 2010).
Such research instruments used in conjunction with statistical analy-
sis can be useful in testing hypotheses and identifying broad patterns
or trends. More recently, there has been some recognition that fixed-
item questionnaires alone cannot provide a complete picture. There are
notable examples of other innovative methods being used alongside
questionnaires. In a study investigating implicit theories within orga-
nizations, Murphy and Dweck (2010) employed a range of role-play
and simulation activities to elicit data, and in work with younger learn-
ers, Levy and Dweck (1999) created scenarios for interpretation using
various stimulation materials.
Within applied linguistics, the difficulties of investigating beliefs have

been well documented (for a critical overview, see Barcelos, 2003). For
example, Benson and Lor (1999) point out that in using questionnaires,
there is a risk of putting words into the mouths of participants by requir-
ing them to consider ideas that may not be important to them, or of
ignoring other beliefs they consider important but are not included in
the questionnaire. A further criticism of research based solely on ques-
tionnaires and statistical analysis is that it fails to acknowledge the

dynamic and contextualized nature of beliefs (Kalaja, 1995). In response
to this, more context-sensitive qualitative approaches have been pro-
posed, which are also able to accommodate the dynamic nature of these
beliefs in context. Barcelos (2003) concludes that no single data col-
lection method can capture the full complexity and unpredictability
of people’s beliefs and recommends multiple data collection methods,
combining various techniques such as questionnaire analysis, class-
room observations, interviews, case studies, and narratives. The message
appears to be that researchers need to be pragmatic, innovative, and
open to new approaches.
Research focusing specifically on mindsets in language learning is
still relatively sparse but our own experience of researching language
learning mindsets has persuaded us of the value of diversity and a
range of methodological approaches. In our earliest research, question-
naires adapted for the language learning context from Dweck’s Implicit
Theories questionnaire provided us with some interesting insights into
general tendencies within and across populations in different cultural
settings (Mercer & Ryan, 2009). However, in attempting to explain
some of our findings and to better understand the specific nature of
mindsets within language learning, we shifted the focus of our inquiry
towards an exploration of the detail and situated complexity of learners’
mindset beliefs.
An example of mindsets research
Participants and procedure

This small-scale study was intended to build upon earlier work and gen-
erate hypotheses for further research. In particular, we were keen to
explore the concept of innate ‘natural’ ability as an expression of a fixed
mindset. Our aim was to elicit detailed data concerning this one specific
aspect of mindset-related beliefs. We asked learners to write reflective
pieces about their thoughts on the role of natural ability in language
learning. Our hope was that extended written pieces would allow the
students time to reflect in depth, at their own pace, thereby providing
richer, more nuanced data.
We anticipated that tertiary-level students would be better able to
reflect and articulate their implicit, deeply held thoughts than younger
learners. Therefore, we decided to confine our study to university stu-
dents. We received 23 texts in English: 14 from students at an Austrian
university and, 9 from Japanese university students; participation was

voluntary. The participants were asked to write about “your ideas on the
possible role of a natural ability for learning foreign languages and your
beliefs about the process of language learning generally.” To help par-
tially focus their writing, a set of open-ended guidelines were provided.
Some example questions are:
• What factors do you feel are necessary to be a highly successful

language learner?
• Do you believe there is such a thing as a natural ability for learning
languages? Please explain your answer.
• If you believe there is a such thing, how would you describe a natural
ability for learning languages?
The data were coded for content on a line-by-line basis using the
data management software Atlas.ti and were repeatedly re-coded until
‘saturation,’ when no further fresh coding was possible (Charmaz,
2006). The data were analysed for content using a grounded theory
approach. In line with such an approach, hypotheses were not imposed
on the data, but rather the analysis generated ideas and themes which
remained close to the data. Although data were obtained from two very
different educational settings, partly due to the small size of the sample,
we chose not to analyse the texts for cross-cultural or cross-contextual
factors but rather concentrate in detail on the nature of the beliefs rather
than any group generalizations.
The findings
The role of ‘natural talent’
All but five participants expressed a clear belief in the existence of a nat-
ural ability for learning languages. As anticipated, the learners described
this in terms of a ‘talent’ or a ‘feeling’ for languages, and suggested that
this was not something you could change or develop but that it was
‘innate.’ Such beliefs are indicative of a fixed mindset and are clearly
articulated here by one of the Austrian participants:
This feeling mentioned before cannot be learned or hammered

into somebody therefore it is a naturally given thing and a good
precondition for learning foreign languages.
However, those learners who mentioned the role of natural ability dif-
fered considerably in the degree of importance they attached to it as
a factor in successful language learning. Another Austrian participant
explained:

I have to say that I actually do not 100 per cent believe in natural
ability as many other aspects also play an important role.
Statements such as this suggest that it is more appropriate to think in

terms of a mindsets continuum, rather than a distinct dichotomy.
Integrating other factors

None of the learners expressed a belief that language learning success
stems from natural ability alone, but rather they saw this as one of
several key ingredients; natural ability was perceived of as playing a
role, but only in combination with other factors. Participants in the
study offered a wide and highly personalized range of factors they
considered important; the most common were interest or motivation,
but contextual factors were also often mentioned. Some, such as the
student cited below, refer to a wide range of factors and show a sophis-
ticated awareness of the complexity involved in successfully learning a
language:
To sum up, factors I consider important for foreign language learning

are: motivation, support, cultural understanding, interest and a bit of
natural ability. Of course I think all of these features are interlinked,
which makes it almost impossible to tell them apart.
Learners also assigned differing degrees of importance to the various fac-

tors they considered important for successful learning. The thoughts of
the following two students serve to illustrate this point; the first thinks
that motivation is the ‘key’ factor, more important than other factors
she refers to in her text, while the second student contends that several
factors contribute to language learning success with the most critical of
these being natural ability:
In my view, the key factor to be a successful foreign language learner

is motivation.
I feel that there are a number of factors that influence our language
learning process. I think natural ability is one of the most important.
Learners appear to view language learning success as attributable to a

range of factors, not just ability, and that these factors combine and
contribute in differing degrees to an individual’s approach to learn-
ing. Research into mindsets and academic achievement has tended to
concentrate on beliefs concerning the perceived malleability of abil-

ity and intelligence. While these beliefs are doubtless of importance,
our data suggest that for language learners beliefs about the mal-
leability of other factors may be equally, or possibly more, important
depending on the relative importance assigned to that factor by the
individual.
To illustrate this point, one of the Japanese students suggested that
alongside natural ability, an individual’s ‘natural character’ was an
important part of becoming a successful language learner. He implied
that personality characteristics, such as being ‘shy’, were fixed traits,
concluding that a ‘shy’ person could only succeed at writing in a for-
eign language. For this learner, a consideration of his beliefs about the
relative malleability of personality characteristics would be an important
part of understanding his overall language learning mindset.
Variation
A final finding emerging from the analysis of the data is that learners
vary considerably in their beliefs. The data illustrate how beliefs can vary
according to a series of perceived mediating factors, such as the learning
context – a stay abroad or classroom-based setting, the language skill
area under consideration, and other variables such as age:
Of course it also depends on other factors such as age or setting.

One is much faster at acquiring any language the younger the per-
son is because there is a certain threshold to acquiring languages
until a certain age. When it comes to the setting, there is of course
a huge difference whether you learn the aspiring foreign language in
your home country or in the country where the language is actually
spoken.
A second area of variation concerns the dynamism of mindsets across

time and this was reflected in one learner’s narrative about the perceived
development and changes in his beliefs about the role and nature of
natural ability:
I actually believed that I had a natural ability for learning a for-

eign language. I later changed my opinion about the concept natural
ability.
This final data extract serves as a cautionary yet optimistic note on

which to conclude our discussion. The statement is cautionary in that
it reminds us of the complexity of learner belief systems, warning
against overly simplistic understandings of mindsets, yet optimistic in

highlighting a capacity for change in those systems.
Summary
The findings from this small-scale study illustrate the complexity and
potential dynamism of mindsets. The data suggest that beliefs about
the nature of ability or talent provide only a part of the picture. For
a more meaningful understanding of language learning mindsets, it
is essential to consider learners’ beliefs about other influential fac-
tors in language learning, and in particular notions of malleability or
modifiability, alongside the relative importance they assign to these
factors. While we remain convinced that, as suggested by the psy-
chology literature, beliefs about the malleability of intelligence and
ability exert a powerful influence on approaches to learning, we also
recognize that these are only one set of beliefs among many. The
texts we obtained were also highly individual, displaying consider-
able inter-learner variation. This appears to be an indication of how
personalized and unique learners’ belief systems can be and, as such,
cautions against simplistic frameworks or models that do not acknowl-
edge complexity, variability, or dynamism (cf. Ushioda, 2011). From
a methodological viewpoint, the study also illustrates the value of
in-depth qualitative research which can generate valuable nuanced
insights.
Future directions for research and pedagogic

considerations
Research in psychology has highlighted how mindsets affect approaches

to learning, especially in domains where natural talent is considered
important. Research into language learning mindsets is still very much
in its infancy and much work remains to be done before we can claim
to more fully understand their complexity. While the kinds of insights
offered by quantitative and experimental-style studies can be valuable, it
is apparent that by blanketing over individual variation and complexity
(Dörnyei, 2010) we are only observing a fragment of the bigger picture.

In order to gain a broad but also deep understanding of mindsets, we
suggest that much can be gained by considering a range of theoretical
perspectives and methodological approaches. Particular questions that
we suggest need to be immediately addressed with respect to mindsets
in foreign language learning are:
• To what extent might learners at differing levels of proficiency hold

different mindsets across skill domains?
• How do learners’ mindsets across a range of related domains inter-
connect, in particular foreign language and mother tongue domains?
• In what ways are learners’ mindsets influenced by their social,
cultural, and educational contexts?
In pedagogic terms, the intervention studies are encouraging in that

they suggest the potential for learners’ mindsets to change. Conceptual-
izations of mindsets as a continuum also make it easier for individuals
and educators to conceive of progress in developing mindsets as learn-
ers have the potential to move gradually along the continuum, rather
than less plausibly execute a radical mindset shift. In terms of practice,
an explicit discussion of learner beliefs and mindsets is likely to be help-
ful in dispelling inhibiting, unhelpful beliefs. In addition, there are four
other key ways in which educators are believed to be able to influence
and enhance mindsets (Dweck, 1999):
1. through the careful use of praise and feedback;

2. through positive modelling of their own and other successful indi-
viduals’ growth mindsets;
3. by providing learners with strategies to actively direct and manage
their own learning;
4. by using materials which enable learners to witness their own
‘growth’ and thereby feel a sense of progress.
It is clear that learners’ belief systems cannot be influenced in eas-

ily predictable ways. Nevertheless, through the careful consideration of
implicit messages contained in classroom behaviours, task construction,
and interactions, it may be possible to create a learning environment
that facilitates growth mindsets. A substantial body of research from
educational psychology holds that doing this may empower learners to
engage with their learning purposefully and increase the likelihood of
successful learning outcomes.

Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay
theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192–203.
This article is a good introduction to research in this area. It is accessible
and situates research into lay theories within the overall framework of educa-
tional psychology, showing how they link to other key concepts in psychology.

Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Though not specifically about mindsets, this edited volume provides an
excellent overview of some of the key issues connected to researching beliefs
within SLA.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and develop-
ment. Hove: Psychology Press.
An essential read for anybody with an interest in the issues discussed in this
chapter. Compact and well organized, the book shows how cognitive and
motivational patterns originate in people’s self-theories.
References
Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype
threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125.
Baird, G., Scott, W., Dearing, E., & Hamill, S. (2009). Cognitive self-regulation in
youth with and without learning disabilities: Academic self-efficacy, theories of
intelligence, learning vs. Performance goal preferences, and effort attributions.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(7), 881–908.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In
P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches
(pp. 7–33). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning.
System, 27(4), 459–472.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of
intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudi-
nal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
Chen, J., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of grade 6 sci-
ence students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motiva-
tion and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35,
75–87.
Chiu, C. -Y., Hong, Y. -Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit
theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1),
19–30.
Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe
about them? System, 27(4), 493–513.
Dewaele, J. -M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimen-

sions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). The relationship between language aptitude and language
learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspec-
tive. In E. Macaro (Ed.), The Continuum companion to second language acquisition
(pp. 247–267). London: Continuum Books.

Dupreyat, C., & Mariné, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal ori-
entation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model
with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30,
43–59.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of
learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 674–685.
ment. Hove: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random
House.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. -Y., & Hong, Y. -Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
judgements and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry,
6(4), 267–285.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation
and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2007). Self theories: Their impact on competence
motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation (pp. 122–140). New York: The Guilford Press.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motiva-
tion and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1),
5–12.
Feuerstein, R. (1990). The theory of structural modifiability. In B. Presseisen,
R. Sternberg, K. Fischer, C. Knight, & R. Feuerstein (Eds.), Learning and thinking
styles: Classroom interaction (pp. 68–134). Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., & Falik, L. H. (2010). Beyond smarter: Mediated
learning and the brain’s capacity for change. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, S. (1991). Mediated learning experience: A theo-
retical review. In R. Feuerstein, P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Medi-
ated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications
(pp. 3–51). London: Freund Publishing House.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized
test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645–662.
Graham, S. (2002). Experiences of learning French: A snapshot at years 11, 12
and 13. Language Learning Journal, 25(1), 15–20.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C. et al. (2001).
Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America:
An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599–615.
Hong, Y. -Y., Chiu, C. -Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theo-
ries, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599.
Horwitz, E. K. (1998). The beliefs about language learning of beginning foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294.
Kalaja, P. (1995). Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA recon-
sidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 191–204.
Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and per-
ceived competence: Impact on students’ achievement behavior. Psychology in
the Schools, 39(3), 279–291.
Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). The impact of children’s static versus dynamic
conceptions of people on stereotype formation. Child Development, 70(5),
1163–1180.
Lockhart, K. L., Nakashima, N., Inagaki, K., & Keil, F. C. (2008). From ugly duck-
ling to swan? Japanese and American beliefs about the stability and origin of
traits. Cognitive Development, 23, 155–179.
Martin, A. J. (2008). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Test-
ing a multidimensional framework in diverse performance settings. Journal of
Personality, 76(1), 135–1170.
Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2009). Talented for languages? Describing the mindsets
of advanced language learners. In E. Schwarz & S. Mercer (Eds.), Das spiel
der sprachen: Impulse zu einer translationsbezogenen sprachdidaktik. Working with
language: Insights into language teaching for translators (pp. 11–31). Graz: ITAT.
Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2010). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role
of natural talent. ELT Journal, 64(4), 436–444.
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What
do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49(9),
377–415.
Murphy, M., & Dweck, C. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay
theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 283–296.
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they
and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 763–784.
Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education
classes: The influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achieve-
ment goal orientations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2(3), 139–156.
Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individ-
ual differences in self-handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit
theories. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 67–85.
Robins, R., & Pals, J. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Impli-
cations for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self
and Identity, 1(4), 313–336.
Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2011). Natural talent, natural acquisition and abroad:
Learner attributions of agency in language learning. In G. Murray, X. Gao,
& T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning
Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray,

X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.
White, C. (2008). Beliefs and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons
from good language learners (pp. 121–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social

constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7
Attribution: Looking Back
and Ahead at the ‘Why’ Theory
Pei-Hsuan (Peggy) Hsieh

Introduction
Motivation is generally acknowledged as a key determinant of successful

outcomes in learning. However, simply acknowledging the importance
of learner motivation does not allow us to understand fully how learn-
ers develop motivation and how we can help them sustain that level of
motivation. In order to understand motivation more fully, it is impor-
tant to explore some of the factors that contribute to an individual’s
desire to learn and achieve. One of these is learners’ attributions.
In this chapter, I first outline what is meant by attribution theory
before focusing on attributions in foreign language learning. I then
look at different approaches to research in the field, and present a
current research study into the attributions for success and failure of
500 students studying Spanish, French, and German in the USA.
An overview of attribution theory
From a constructivist perspective on learning, learners try to understand

their world by actively attaching meanings to their learning situations
(White, 1959; Williams & Burden, 1997). They often form beliefs about
their capabilities to complete tasks successfully and these perceptions
play an important role in their actions, motivation, and achievement
(Bandura, 1977; Schunk, 1991; Weiner, 1985). One perspective that has
contributed substantially to an understanding of students’ motivation
to learn is Weiner’s (1976, 2000) attribution theory.
Attribution theory represents an attempt to discover how individ-
uals perceive the causes of their behaviour and to look at the ways
in which their beliefs may affect their motivation and achievement
90
Pei-Hsuan (Peggy) Hsieh 91
(Fiske & Taylor, 1984). The attribution process begins as follows: at many
points in their lives, individuals succeed at some things and fail at oth-
ers and, thinking back about their experiences, they ask themselves why
success or failure occurred. It is a part of human nature to want to find
reasons for one’s successes or failures. By seeking explanations for the
underlying causes of one’s successes, one might be able to control the
events that affect them and continue working with the hope of suc-
ceeding again. Similarly, the process of ascribing a reason for failure can

guide a person to avoid failing again. The process, however, is depen-
dent upon one’s beliefs and therefore a person’s attributions may not
represent the ‘true’ reasons for the success or failure of a task (Hsieh &
Schallert, 2008). For instance, if a student believes that his or her success
in learning a foreign language is due to the amount of effort he or she
has put into learning (e.g., practising speaking with a native speaker),
the student will expect to do well the next time he or she approaches
similar tasks assuming that effort can determine the outcome. Or, if the
student fails in a language class and believes that failure is due to his
or her low ability (i.e., the person believes they do not have ‘a gift’ for
learning foreign languages), the student may avoid similar tasks in the
future so as to avoid failing again.
Heider (1958), generally acknowledged to be the founder of attribu-
tion theory, first proposed that perceived causes of behaviour depend
on two types of factors: personal and environmental. As an extension
to Heider’s theory, Rotter (1966) introduced the dimension of locus
of control, a dimension concerned with whether the individual per-
ceives the cause of an event as internal to the self or as due to external
factors.
While there have been numerous conceptions of attribution theory
proposed, the theory that is most comprehensive in its relationship
to achievement motivation is the attribution theory formulated and
elaborated by Weiner in 1976. Within Weiner’s model, attributions can
be categorized along three dimensions: locus, stability, and control.
It is these three causal dimensions that influence individuals to choose
to continue or disengage with doing a task. Locus is concerned with
whether the individual perceives the cause of an event as internal or
external. For example, students with an internal locus of control may
attribute success to ability, something that may consequently affect their
confidence or pride and will then influence their expectancy for future
success. Learners with an external locus of control may attribute suc-
cess to luck, giving little basis for control over what future outcomes
may be like. The stability dimension refers to whether the cause of
92 Attribution
an event is stable or unstable across time and events. Innate ability is

often considered as being stable as it is believed it does not change over
time, while effort would be seen as unstable and will vary according
to an individual’s choice in each new situation. The last dimension,
controllability, refers to how much control individuals perceive they
have over a cause. Effort and strategy use would normally be classified
as controllable because learners can control how much effort to allo-
cate to a task and can decide on the strategy to use. Ability, along with

health and luck, on the other hand, are generally categorized as uncon-
trollable. What is important is the way in which learners perceive these
causes as they have important consequences for their expectations for
future success and also subsequent behaviour.
There are many times when students will engage in a search for
attributions spontaneously. But on what basis do they assign success
or failure to internal or external factors, stable or unstable charac-
teristics, controllable or uncontrollable causes? Weiner (1977) claimed
that learners’ attributions come from situational cues such as their past
experiences, feedback from teachers, observation of the performance of
peers, and how much help was received.
It is important to understand learners’ attributions in achievement
settings because these are likely to influence their decisions in taking
on achievement activities. Regardless of the accuracy of these attribu-
tions, they will influence learners’ intensity of work at these activities,
the degree of persistence in the face of failure, expectancy for success,
beliefs about their competence, and, in turn, influence their motivation,
achievement, and even emotions (Graham, 1994; Weiner, 2000).
Different individuals make different attributions

How individuals make attributions differs across culture, age groups, and
gender. For example, hard work and obedience are virtues that Asian par-
ents and teachers typically emphasize. As a result, cross-cultural studies
on attribution reveal effort as the main attribution learners ascribe for
academic achievement in Asia, while it receives relatively less empha-
sis in Western countries, compared with ability (Stevenson & Stigler,
1992). Researchers also found that African American students were more
likely to make external attributions, whereas white Americans were
more likely to make internal attributions for failure (Graham, 1994).
Williams, Burden and Al-Baharna (2001) found that Bahraini students
tended to attribute successful language learning experiences to prac-
tice and support from family and teachers, while inadequate teaching
methods were the most common reasons given for failure.
It would not be surprising to find that attributions for success and

failure differ between age groups. Because of developmental differences,
the meaning of ‘effort’ and ‘ability’ differ among children and adults.
Young children hold incremental views of ability (Dweck, 1999), that is,
they tend to believe that their ability will improve with time because
they see themselves being more successful with practice (e.g., reading,
throwing a ball). (For a discussion of implicit theories of intelligence, see
Chapter 6 by Ryan & Mercer.) As a result, when children attribute fail-

ure to lack of ability, it may not have a negative consequence for their
expectancies for future success. Rather, it is comparable to an attribu-
tion to lack of effort; skills will develop through practice. On the other
hand, adults tend to have an entity view of intelligence and believe
that failure in spite of working hard indicates lack of ability (Nicholls,
1990). Williams, Burden, Poulet, and Maun (2004) found a drop in effort
attributions for success between 7th and 11th graders, which may be
in congruence with their entity view of intelligence and the meaning
learners attach to ‘effort’ as mentioned above.
There are many studies investigating gender differences in mak-
ing attributions. This area, however, has produced conflicting results
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). A few studies have found that women are
more likely than men to attribute success to external causes and fail-
ure to internal and stable causes (Nelson & Cooper, 1997). In addressing
college students’ attributions for academic performance, Beyer (1999)
found that men made internal, stable attributions for success, whereas
women made more internal, stable attributions for failure. However,
some studies have found the opposite. Riordan, Thomas and James
(1985), in a study looking at athletes’ attributions, found that for
unsuccessful outcomes, boys and men tended to ascribe more internal
causation than girls and women did. The pattern of ascribing failure
to internal, stable, and uncontrollable causes may be seen as ‘maladap-
tive’ because success is not felt to be within the individual’s control and
failure is regarded as unavoidable.
Given the importance of learners’ perceptions of control, help-
ing them to attribute outcomes of performances to strategy use and
effort has been the focus of attribution retraining as these factors are
controllable by the individual and are therefore considered healthy
attributions.
The benefits of attribution retraining

Individuals’ attributions have been of interest to researchers because
of their suggested influence on learners’ expectancy for future success
94 Attribution
and motivation. Andrews and Debus (1978) found that when failure is
attributed to a stable cause such as lack of ability, future failure is antic-
ipated and expectancy of success decreases. Meyer (1970) demonstrated
that in situations of failure, expectancies of future success do not greatly
decrease among individuals who attribute their failure to lack of effort,
an unstable cause. Researchers investigating children with dyslexia have
suggested that when children made uncontrollable attributions, they
had significantly lower perceived scholastic competence than children

who made controllable attributions (Frederickson & Jacobs, 2001), sug-
gesting that learners’ attributions play an important role in determining
their perceived competence, expectations, and achievement.
Dweck (1975) noted that attributions of failure to one’s lack of innate
ability result in less effort to change future patterns of motivation than
do attributions to effort. In an experiment, Dweck taught students who
exhibited learned helplessness (believing that they cannot do well no
matter how hard they try) to attribute failure to lack of effort. Results
showed that these students started to improve their performance and
at the same time, attribute failure to insufficient effort. Individuals’
expectancy for success changes as their attributions change.
Much empirical evidence has indicated that attributions will influence
student achievement motivation, and vice versa. For example, Schunk
(1983) found that students who were told that they were smart and have
high ability demonstrated the highest skill in a task and had greater
confidence than their counterparts who were given no feedback on how
they did. One explanation for this is that as children learn, they develop
a sense of efficacy, that is beliefs about their ability to complete a task
successfully. Providing attributional feedback helps to support their self-
perceptions of progress and enhances their sense of efficacy (Schunk,
1982). A heightened sense of efficacy helps sustain motivation, which
in turn leads to greater skill acquisition.
Attributions in learning a foreign/second language

Foreign language learning is often regarded as a unique academic sub-
ject which is different from other subjects because it challenges learners
by requiring them to integrate and assimilate new cultural practices
(Williams, 1994). Learning a language has also been described as being
associated with losing face as learners must speak a foreign language
in public (Horwitz, 1990), risking criticism and embarrassment. While
maths or science are areas of learning that have usually been a part of
students’ previous academic lives and are more likely to be considered
a part of their own culture (Gardner, 2001), learning a foreign language
requires students to incorporate material that may seem more markedly

different from their own culture.
Horwitz (1988) found that many language learners make pre-
assumptions of whether they can succeed in learning a foreign language.
Learners’ beliefs about their ability to speak accurately can be influenced
by their perceptions of how others might judge them or vicariously
through observations of how their peers perform. For language learners
who struggle, there are many ways in which they explain failure; lacking

ability is often top on their list of reasons. If learners frame themselves as
not having been born with a natural ability to learn foreign languages,
their expectations for success would often be low, leading to a lack of
motivation to learn.
Foreign language learning is an interesting context in which to study
attribution effects because in many countries undergraduates are not
required to take foreign language courses. Students who choose to take a
foreign language class may vary in the degree to which they feel capable
of meeting the challenges that the course offers (Graham, 2004). Stu-
dents often perceive that foreign language learning is difficult and that
only those who have a special gift can do well (Fisher, 2001; Graham,
2002; Horwitz, 1988), an ability attribution. Such a belief can contribute
to a decision to opt in or out of learning a foreign language.
Approaches to research on attribution theory
A number of different methods have been used to investigate learn-

ers’ attributions. In the early work on attributions, the relevance of the
research to educational practice had its limitations because most studies
focused on learners’ reactions to hypothetical scenarios, contrived labo-
ratory tasks, or tasks that were not directly relevant to the learners. For
example, in a quantitative experimental study, Weiner and Kukla (1970)
examined causal attribution where participants were either involved in
role-playing situations or given a scenario for which they were asked to
explain why they believed a particular outcome occurred and the extent
to which the outcome was a result of the person’s effort or ability.
In another quantitative study, Frieze and Weiner (1971) divided par-
ticipants into two groups in which one group of participants were told
they succeeded on a hypothetical task and the other group were told
they failed. They were then asked to attribute the outcomes to the four
causal factors of ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. Results indi-
cated that success was more often attributed to internal factors than
failure was.
96 Attribution
There have been a considerable number of attribution studies carried

out in the areas of maths and sports. These have often been conducted
using quantitative methods. In some studies, participants read scenarios
of successful or failure situations and rated whether they believed the
outcome was due to effort or ability. Other studies required participants
to complete a task and based on their performance they were asked to
rate how strongly they believed the outcome was due to an internal,
external, or stable factor (e.g., Bempecha, Ginsburg, Nakkula, & Wu,

1996; Bond, Biddle, & Ntoumanis, 2001; Chase, 2001; Powers, Choroszy,
Douglas, & Cool, 1986).
Even as recently as 2001, Holschuh, Nist, and Olejnik used hypo-
thetical scenarios to determine how individuals make attributions for
successes and failures. However, such studies are limited in that using
hypothetical situations that lack personal authenticity and asking indi-
viduals to make self-judgements on tasks that may be irrelevant to their
lives does not necessarily capture how they truly feel. As a result, it is
difficult to know the degree to which these tasks evoke the true attri-
butions that the individuals would give in achievement settings they
are personally involved in. Learners are naturally curious and tend to
want to know what is behind their own success or failure. As Weiner
(1986) noted, if an individual comes upon a situation that is unex-
pected, attribution is more likely to occur and as such, individuals
are more likely to find causes for an event that is important to them
personally.
A different strand of attribution research has emerged more recently
in the area of language learning. These studies have moved away
from the quantitative approaches described and employed more qual-
itative methods mainly using interviews and open-ended questions to
examine foreign language learners’ attributions (e.g., McQuillan, 2000;
Tse, 2000; Williams & Burden, 1999; Williams, Burden, & Al-Baharna,
2001; Williams et al., 2004). Many of these have involved asking par-
ticipants to give reasons for their perceived successes or failures in
their own words, which were then content-analysed using a grounded
theory approach. The researchers then categorized the given reasons
into groups and reported the most prevalent attributions. Participants’
responses for the reasons for their success have often been effort, the
support of parents and teachers, and interactions with people who speak
the foreign language. Reasons frequently given for failure have tended
to be lack of practice and insufficient effort.
While quantitative studies can provide a more precise relationship
between independent and dependent variables under investigation
(e.g., the relationship between attributing success to ability and one’s

confidence level), qualitative studies offer a more holistic view of the
phenomena being examined (i.e., actual reasons for successes and fail-
ures are provided by students without restricting their responses to the
causes given by researchers on paper).
A study of foreign language students’ attributions

A study involving 500 students learning Spanish, French, and German,
which I conducted with a colleague on learners’ attributions, makes an
attempt to expand on current research. Research in the past has either
assessed attributions through actual reasons (e.g., “Using the informa-
tion which you have been given, determine how much of the result was
due to effort or how skilful the person was”) or used the ‘dimensions’ of
causal attributions offered by Weiner (e.g., “From the scenario, using a
5-point scale, rate how strongly you believe the outcome was due to an
external factor”). However, for some people, ability is viewed as stable
and uncontrollable, while others who hold an incremental view of intel-
ligence see ability as unstable and controllable. Therefore, using both a
questionnaire asking students to assess the actual reasons for their grade
and an attributional dimension measure yields multiple perspectives on
learners’ attributional beliefs (Hsieh & Schallert, 2008).
The students were given a midterm exam and were later given their
grades. We used two attribution scales as measures of attributions. One
measures dimensions and the other measures the reasons. The Causal
Dimension Scale (CDS-II), developed by McAuley, Duncan and Russell
(1992), contains 12 items assessing the four subscales of locus of causal-
ity, stability, personal control, and external control that are each scored
on a 9-point scale (e.g., “The grade reflects an aspect of yourself”). Scores
on subscales can range from 3 to 27, with higher values representing
attributions that are more internal, stable, personally controllable, and
externally controllable.
In addition to using the dimension scale, we created an 8-item attri-
bution scale called the Language Achievement Attribution Scale (LAAS)
to assess, first, the degree of success the students believed their test
scores represented, and second, their perceived reason for their result.
Students filled out the LAAS upon receiving their test scores before the
teacher gave any feedback. They wrote down their score on the test
and how satisfied they were with the result using a 6-point scale. Based
on their satisfaction, their perceptions of their success and failure were
determined.
98 Attribution
A self-efficacy measure was also given to students to fill out. Students

responded to questions based on a 5-point Likert scale, pertaining to
their level of confidence in learning the foreign language they were
enrolled in.
Students’ own perceptions of whether the test was a success or a failure
was used because getting 90 per cent on a test may be categorized as a
successful grade, but students with very high expectations of themselves
may view it as a failure, failing to reach their own standards or goals. Rat-

ings of their satisfaction under 3 were categorized into the unsuccessful
group whereas those whose ratings were 4 and above were categorized
into the successful group.
Students then rated the degree to which they believed the result of
their test was due to their ability, effort, task difficulty, mood, and luck
(e.g., “I received the grade because of the amount of effort I put into
learning the language”) on 6-point rating scales, ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Results indicated that ability attributions and
internal factors were the strongest predictors for language achievement
as measured by the test. In addition, students who perceived themselves
as unsuccessful and who believed that effort did not play a significant
part in the test outcome scored significantly lower on self-efficacy than
those who believed that lack of effort played a role in the test outcome.
This may suggest that when students attribute failure to factors that are
not within their volitional control, their confidence suffers.
Implications for practice
Attributions not only influence achievement but can also affect one’s
willingness to persist on future tasks and one’s expectancy for future
success. It is therefore important that educators help learners to develop
attributions that facilitate learning.
As research suggests, students are most likely to be motivated and have
higher achievement if they attribute success to factors over which they
have control. Emphasizing uncontrollable causes, such as lack of innate
ability and task difficulty, can decrease students’ willingness to learn or
seek challenges and can increase anxiety. Learned helpless students in
particular believe that success has little to do with how much effort they
put in. Therefore, for these students, emphasizing the use of strategies
and effort is one way to shape their beliefs in a positive way, leading
to higher expectancy for future success, increased motivation to learn
the foreign language and ultimately having a positive impact on these
students’ achievement.
Attributions also have important effects on how students feel about

themselves, which can lead to higher or lower confidence. From the
results gathered in our study reported here, it can be suggested that
a more fruitful approach to enhancing the development of positive
self-efficacy beliefs (beliefs about one’s capabilities to complete a task
successfully) is likely to result from attribution retraining procedures
that are used in conjunction with appropriate language skills training.

Hsieh, P. H., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and
attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a
foreign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 513–532.
This paper describes a study that examines both self-efficacy and attributions.
Attributions were measured in two ways, using dimensions of attributions
and asking about actual reasons for a real outcome using a new instrument
developed by the authors. The authors provide an in-depth description of how
the study was conducted and how results were interpreted.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Attribution theory.
In D. H. Schunk, P. R. Pintrich, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Motivation in education:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 79–120). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
This chapter on attribution theory gives an in-depth summary of the theory,
the role it plays in learners’ motivation, research findings, and its implications
for classroom practice. The authors offer educators concrete suggestions on
providing feedback designed to develop learners’ motivation.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social
psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73–84). New York: Guilford Press.
In this chapter, Bernard Weiner takes on a new approach to examining the
relationship between attribution and emotion. He discusses the psychology of
others viewing the individual who have either succeeded or failed at a task.
A thorough discussion of the social and emotional reactions that come with
the observers’ attributions for another person’s success and failure is offered.
References
Andrews, G. R., & Debus, R. L., (1978). Persistence and the causal perception
of failure: Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology,
70(2), 154–166.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bempechat, J., Ginsburg, H., Nakkula, M., & Wu, J. (1996). Attributions as pre-
dictors of mathematics achievement: A Comparative Study. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 29(2), 53–59.
100 Attribution
Beyer, S. (1999). Gender differences in causal attributions by college students of

performance on course examinations. Current Psychology, 17, 346–358.
Bond, K. A., Biddle, S. J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2001). Self-efficacy and causal
attribution in female golfers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31,
243–256.
Chase, M. A. (2001). Children’s self-efficacy, motivational intentions, and attri-
butions in physical education and sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
72(1), 47–54.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation

of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674–685.
ment. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Fisher, L. (2001). Modern foreign languages recruitment post-16: The pupils’
perspective. Language Learning Journal, 23, 33–40.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frederickson, N., & Jacobs, S. (2001). Controllability attributions for academic
performance and the perceived scholastic competence, global self-worth and
achievement of children with dyslexia. School Psychology International, 22(4),
401–417.
Frieze, I., & Weiner, B. (1971). Cue utilization and attributional judgments for
success and failure. Journal of Personality, 39, 591–605.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Language learning motivation: the student, the teacher,
and the researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1–18.
Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 55–117.
Graham, S. J. (2002). Experiences of learning French: A snapshot at years 11, 12,
and 13. Language Learning Journal, 25, 15–20.
Graham, S. J. (2004) Giving up on modern foreign languages? Students’ percep-
tions of learning French. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 171–191.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Holschuh, J. P., Nist, S. L., & Olejnik, S. (2001). Attributions to failure: the effects
of effort, ability, and learning strategy use on perceptions of future goals and
emotional responses. Reading Psychology, 22, 153–173.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294.
Horwitz, E. K. (1990). Attending to the affective domain in the foreign lan-
guage classroom. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the
learner (pp. 15–33). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference of Foreign Language
Teachers.
Hsieh, P. H., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and attribu-
tion theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign
language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 513–532.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. (1992). Measuring causal attributions:
The revised causal dimension scale (CDS II). Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 566–573.
McQuillan, J. (2000). Attribution theory and second language acquisition:
An empirical analysis. Paper Presented at AAAL Conference, Vancouver,
Canada.
Meyer, W. U. (1970). Selbstverantwortlichkeit und Leistungsmotivation (Self respon-

sibility and the other as achievement motivation). Bochum, Germany: Ruhr
Universitat.
Nelson, L. J., & Cooper, J. (1997). Gender differences in children’s reactions
to success and failure with computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 13,
247–267.
Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A develop-
mental perspective. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered
(pp. 11–40). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Powers, S., Choroszy, M., Douglas, P., & Cool, B. (1986). Attributions for suc-
cess and failure in algebra of Samoan community college students: A profile
analysis. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 13(1), 3–9.
Riordan, C. A., Thomas, J. S., & James, M. K. (1985). Attributions in a one-on-
one sports competition: Evidence for self-serving biases and gender differences.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 8, 42–53.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s per-
ceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4),
548–556.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: different
effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6),
848–856.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychol-
ogist, 26, 207–231.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are
failing and what can we learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York:
Summit Books.
Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative anal-
ysis of foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1),
69–84.
Weiner, B. (1976). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educa-
tional process. Review of Educational Research, 42, 203–215.
Weiner, B. (1977). An attributional approach for educational psychology. Review
of Research in Education, 4, 345–366.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (2000). Interpersonal and intrapersonal theories of motivation from
an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1–14.
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motiva-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(1), 1–20.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.
Williams, M. (1994). Motivation in foreign and second language learning:
An interactive perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 77–84.
102 Attribution
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1999). Students’ developing conceptions of them-
selves as language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 193–201.
Williams, M., Burden, R., & Al-Baharna, S. (2001). Making sense of success and
failure: The role of the individual in motivation theory. In Z. Dörnyei &
R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 171–184).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.

Williams, M., Burden, R., Poulet, G., & Maun, I. (2004). Learners’ perceptions
of their successes and failures in foreign language learning. Language Learning
Journal, 30, 19–29.
8
Affect: The Role of Language
Anxiety and Other Emotions
in Language Learning

Peter MacIntyre and Tammy Gregersen
Introduction
The term ‘affect’ includes many things, such as feelings of self-

confidence, feeling willing to communicate, or feeling anxious. Perhaps
the most widely studied affective reaction to L2 communication, and
the main focus of this chapter, is language anxiety. Language anxiety is
a term that encompasses the feelings of worry and negative, fear-related
emotions associated with learning or using a language that is not an
individual’s mother tongue. The term covers language being learned in
locations where intergroup contact is available (so-called ‘second’ lan-
guage) or not available (so-called ‘foreign’ language) and also covers
various language skills (especially speaking, but also reading, writing,
and comprehension). After reviewing the literature on language anxi-
ety, we will consider the issue of affective variables more broadly. There
is still much to learn about the role of affective variables in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition (SLA), and we will conclude with some suggestions
for future research.
Overview of the literature on language anxiety
Whereas the literature on language anxiety has discussed the possibility

of the positive effects of stress, sometimes called eustress or facilitating
anxiety, a tension and arousal that keeps learners alert (Ehrman, 1996),
it is important to emphasize that this chapter deals with anxiety in its
debilitating form. With this caveat in mind, one of the most consistent
findings in the SLA literature is that higher levels of language anxi-
ety are associated with lower levels of language achievement (Dewaele,
103
104 Affect
2007; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986;
MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c; Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, &
Daley 1999, 2000, 2002; Sanchez-Herrero & Sanchez, 1992; Woodrow,
2006). Students who are more anxious tend to get lower course grades
(Aida, 1994; Elkhafaifi, 2005; Horwitz, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner,
1994b; Young, 1986) and are more likely to want to drop out of their
language course (Dewaele, 2009). Contributing to the negative effects
of anxiety on language achievement is the tendency for anxiety to

interfere with cognitive processing at the input stage (e.g., taking in
new information), processing stage (e.g., incorporating new information
into long-term memory) and the output stage (e.g., verbal production)
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994a; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2000).
In the classroom, anxious learners tend to freeze up in role-play
activities, forget previously learned material, are less likely to volun-
teer answers, and participate less than their non-anxious counterparts
(Ely, 1986; Horwitz et al., 1986). All of this works towards lower course
grades (Gardner, 1985) and ultimately, problems with language pro-
ficiency. Students who are anxious sometimes respond by studying
more, or ‘overstudying’ (Horwitz et al., 1986), but complete the course
with lower levels of achievement. The feeling of not being rewarded
for one’s efforts can be a source of considerable frustration for anx-
ious learners (Price, 1991). Anxious students respond less effectively to
their own errors (Gregersen, 2003) and may rely on strategies to man-
age their emotions (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996). They can also exhibit
avoidance behaviours, such as missing class or procrastinating on assign-
ments, that can be linked to unrealistically high personal performance
standards (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002).
For this brief review of the literature, we will adopt an historical
perceptive. Some of the early work in affective reactions to language
learning examined whether the tendency to experience anxiety cor-
related with second language performance. In the late 1970s, Scovel’s
(1978) review of the available literature on the effects of anxiety on
foreign/second language learning found ‘mixed and confusing’ results.
Perhaps the best example of the research difficulties was Chastain’s
(1975) study that reported positive, negative, and near zero correlations
between anxiety and second language learning. In a later summary of
the literature, Young (1991) listed 16 studies of anxiety and language
learning (see pp. 438–439); as a group, they showed inconsistent results.
MacIntyre (1999) suggested the research reviewed by Scovel (1978) and
Young (1991) is not what we would now consider to be language anxiety
because the types of anxiety being studied were not specific to the
SLA context.
Peter MacIntyre and Tammy Gregersen 105
Publication of Horwitz et al.’s (1986) paper outlining a conceptu-

alization of language anxiety along with a 33-item Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) questionnaire was a turning point
in language anxiety research. Horwitz et al. (1986) conceptualized lan-
guage anxiety as a distinct form of anxiety, separate from other types of
anxiety or situations in which anxiety arises. Although language anxi-
ety is related to apprehension about communicating, a fear of negative
evaluation by others, and test anxiety, Horwitz et al. (1986) viewed it as

“a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours
related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of
the language learning process” (p. 128). From that point on, the unique-
ness of the second language learning process was foregrounded and
language anxiety was conceptually separated from other anxiety triggers
(see MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989, 1991a, 1991b).
Although much of the literature has referred to anxiety when speak-
ing the second language (see Horwitz & Young, 1991; Saito, Garza, &
Horwitz, 1999), in recent years, there has been a movement to exam-
ine the role of anxiety in all four major skill areas: speaking, writing,
reading and listening. There is also a strong non-verbal dimension to
anxiety, and the ability of teachers to identify the non-verbal cues of
anxious learners is a promising line of research (Gregersen, 2005, 2007a,
2009). The FLCAS was found to be primarily concerned with speaking.
As a response, efforts have been made to study the effects of language
anxiety in specific skill areas. For example, while Saito et al. (1999)
established that reading in a foreign language can also provoke anx-
iety, Sellers (2000) discovered that foreign language reading anxiety
influenced recall of passage content. With respect to writing, Cheng,
Horwitz, and Schallert (1999) examined the connections between sec-
ond language classroom anxiety and second language writing anxiety
and how these related to L2 speaking and writing achievement. Cheng
(2002) went on to further investigate students’ perceptions of their
writing anxiety and how it interacted with other forms of language anx-
iety. Listening anxiety was targeted in Vogely’s (1998) qualitative study,
where she investigated the sources of and solutions to listening com-
prehension anxiety and discussed pedagogical implications. Elkhafaifi
(2005) suggests that foreign language learning anxiety and listening
anxiety are separate but related; both negatively affect achievement.
Integrating language anxiety into the broader literature of SLA and
education has led researchers to examine links to other strands of
research. Higher levels of language anxiety are linked to lower levels of
perceived competence, lower self-efficacy, less motivation (see Ushioda,
Chapter 5, this volume), and lower willingness to communicate (WTC)
106 Affect
in the second language (MacIntyre, 1999; Yashima, Chapter 9, this

volume). There is also some evidence that language anxiety is related
to broad dimensions of the learner, such as learning styles (Bailey &
Daley, 1999; Castro & Peck, 2005; Griffiths, Chapter 11, this volume),
perfectionism (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002), and emotional intelligence
(Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008; Dewaele, Chapter 4, this volume).
Given that the students’ apprehension can be ‘written all over their
faces,’ the ability of teachers to identify the non-verbal cues of anxious

learners is a promising line of research that recognizes the dialectic and
social dimensions of such emotions (Gregersen, 2005, 2007b, 2009).
Although the literature consistently shows a negative correlation
between language anxiety and a wide variety of measures associated
with language achievement, the issue of causality has been raised. Sparks
and Ganschow (1995, 2007) have published a series of articles that ques-
tion whether anxiety should be seen as a cause or effect of language abil-
ity, specifically deficits in linguistic coding (see also, MacIntyre, 1995).
One of their recent papers (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach,
2009) presents an impressive longitudinal study showing a correlation
between, on the one hand, native language linguistic coding difficulties
(see glossary) and, on the other hand, second language anxiety mea-
sured ten years later. Even these data do not directly address the issue of
causality. MacIntyre and Gardner (1994a) employed random assignment
(see glossary for an explanation) in an experiment designed to induce
anxiety during a computerized language learning and performance task.
They found that anxiety arousal led to decreases in performance at the
input, processing and output stages. Therefore, there is evidence that
anxiety arousal can affect the process of acquiring second language
vocabulary. That is not to say, however, that Sparks and Ganschow
(1995, 2007) are incorrect. The most encompassing view of language
anxiety proposes that it is both a cause and effect, part of an non-linear,
ongoing learning and performance process (see MacIntyre, 1995).
Research approaches to foreign language anxiety
Data in the literature cited above has come from both quantitative and
qualitative measures, and, more recently and frequently, a combination
of the two approaches. Quantitative measures have, for the most part,
used Likert-scale self-reporting where participants are asked to respond
to items that measure their agreement with statements indicative of for-
eign language anxiety (e.g., “I get nervous in language class”). Although
the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) is the most frequently used scale, other
measures of language anxiety include the French Use and French Class-
room Anxiety scales (Gardner, 1985) and the Input-Processing-Output
scale (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994b). Adapting measures to other skill
domains has resulted in instruments such as the Foreign Language Read-
ing Anxiety Scale (FLRAS) (Saito et al., 1999), the Foreign Language
Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS) (Elkhafaifi, 2005) and the Second Lan-
guage Writing Anxiety Test (SLWAT) (Cheng, 2002). Within quantitative
approaches, researchers have been able to do large-scale analysis of

language learners’ affective response towards anxiety with the goal of
producing generalizable findings.
Qualitative measures provide illuminating accounts of personal expe-
rience, rich, contextualized descriptions and humanistic data. Using
interview techniques and diaries that elicit open-ended comments,
researchers have been able to elaborate upon the contexts in which
anxiety arises. Price’s (1991) work reports vivid descriptive detail by
documenting her interviews with foreign language learners, allowing
readers to view anxiety from the point of view of the respondent. Sim-
ilarly, Yan and Horwitz (2008) investigate how learners’ perceptions of
anxiety interact with other variables through their interview study, and
Ewald (2007) uses analogous qualitative measures to examine anxiety
in upper-level language classrooms. To explore the function of stress
in language instruction, Spielmann and Radnofsky (2001) used a myr-
iad of qualitative naturalistic measures, including individual and group
interviews, observations, participant-teaching, impromptu casual inter-
actions, analysis of documents, and unobtrusive information residues.
More and more researchers are triangulating their data, that is, using
both quantitative and qualitative measures as they answer their research
questions. Gregersen (2003), for example, used quantitative measures
to acquire data on the frequency of errors made by anxious and non-
anxious learners as well as the regularity of their self-corrections and
code switching. To enrich the results and interpretation of the data, she
contextualized the numerical data through qualitative descriptions of
participants’ comments. Another triangulated study was that carried out
by Pappamihiel (2002), who analysed focus group transcripts to illumi-
nate quantitative data gathered through statistical tests to investigate
anxiety in both second language and mainstream classrooms. Simi-
larly, open-ended questions used to gather data were incorporated into
the Frantzen and Sieloff Magnan (2005) study of anxiety among true
and false beginners in second language classes (French and Spanish).
Although this approach to research helps to put a human face on the
frequency data, there is still something missing.
108 Affect
Example of current research
Current approaches to research in the area of language anxiety demon-

strate the difficulty in describing the ‘process’ by which affect in general
has an impact on second language learning and performance. Research
methods based on questionnaires or interviews are valuable but both
give partial answers; they are not well suited to studying ongoing pro-
cesses, as they evolve. Therefore, there is a need for research to describe

the underlying mechanisms that connect affect in general, or anxiety
in particular, to language performance. Adding a process orientation to
the existing literature would allow researchers to uncover the rise and
fall of anxiety as a communication situation unfolds. Much of the exist-
ing quantitative literature might be described as summative, where a
person’s anxiety level, as represented by the total score on a test (e.g.,
the FLCAS), is correlated with scores on a measure of learning (e.g.,
course grades or test scores). We often find that those with higher anx-
iety tend to get lower grades (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994b), but such
research leaves unspecified the underlying process that produces this
result. Much of the existing qualitative research has tended to take a
long view, with retrospective narratives emerging from interviews that
may be influenced by a number of factors, such as self-serving bias,
hindsight bias, and autobiographical memory biases.
Research can also add a more formative, process-oriented description,
based on studying brief timescales (e.g., a few minutes). In a recently
published study, MacIntyre and Legatto (2011) introduced a proce-
dure for collecting data that allowed for close-to simultaneous self- and
observer-reporting of affective responses to communication in a second
language (see Yashima’s Chapter 9 on WTC, in which she discusses this
study in detail). The authors gathered video data of L2 French speakers
participating in eight oral tasks, in a question-and-answer format (e.g.,
Can you describe what is happening in this painting?). Immediately
afterwards, the participants watched a video recording of their speech
and reported on their WTC using software written for the study. Click-
ing the left mouse button increased WTC rating (to a maximum of +5)
and clicking the right button caused the rating to fall (to a minimum
of –5). The process is similar to the ‘clicker’ data used during political
speeches where participants are placed in a room, listen to the speech,
and click to indicate their approval or disapproval to what is being said.
As soon as the rating process was complete, a graph of the WTC rat-
ings was printed and presented to the participant. Using the graph as
a reference, the participant and a research assistant reviewed the video,
Sue
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
6
3
WTC rating
0
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
113
117
121
125
129
133
137
141
145
149
153
157
161
165
169

–3
–6
Figure 8.1 Changes in ratings of WTC (per second) over eight tasks
pausing when reaching peaks and valleys on the graph, in order to ask
the respondents why their WTC went up or down, as the case may be.
Figure 8.1 shows a graph from one of the participants whose pseudonym
is “Sue.”
In this study, affective ratings of WTC could be matched with verbal
and non-verbal output in real time. This allows for an inspection of the
connection between WTC and verbal output. In the following excerpt
from another respondent’s, “Mabel’s,” transcript, she was asked to count
in French and her dynamic WTC ratings appear over her words:
RA—Please count to one hundred by tens.

0 0 1 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 0 –1
Mabel—Ok. Dix, vingt, trente, quarante, cinquante, soixante, soixante-
dix . . . . [laughs and
–1 –1 –1
puts her hand to cover her mouth] oh my god I can’t believe I can’t
remember that . . . . I
–1 –1 –1
can’t believe I can’t remember eighty . . . .
0 0 0
RA—Ok, you want to just go to the next one?
0 0 0 0 0
Mabel—No, I’m trying to think of it in my head . . . [counts quietly,
barely audible] . . . I
110 Affect
0 0 0 0 0
can’t believe I can’t remember that. Soixante-dix . . . [inaudible] and
I can’t get ninety if I
0 0 0 0 0
can’t get eighty . . . Cent . . . I can’t think of eighty or ninety... you’re
going to tell me this
0 0

later ‘cuz I can’t remember it.
In the interview, Mabel described how she felt confident until she got
stuck on the French word for eighty. Try as she might, the L2 term sim-
ply would not come to mind and she said that her WTC came crashing
down. Although she was not asked to describe anxiety directly, Mabel
indicated she was nervous about participating and about being video-
taped. In this situation, forgetting a vocabulary item seemed to increase
anxiety immediately and it became difficult for her to recall a word that
she knew. Overall, respondents consistently linked falling WTC with
difficulty recalling vocabulary, though MacIntyre and Legatto (2011,
p. 164) observed that “there is more going on than meets their intro-
spective eye.” Ratings made by the respondents’ interlocutor (a research
assistant) confirmed that Mabel and other participants were showing
signs of anxiety as they were communicating. MacIntyre and Legatto
(ibid.) concluded:
Previous quantitative research shows a negative correlation between

anxiety and WTC-trait scores (for example, Baker & MacIntyre
2000). . . . However, in the present study changes in WTC seem to be
somewhat independent of anxiety when considered within a person
on a moment-by-moment basis. Anxiety can rise and fall without
necessarily changing WTC.
The authors found a different process when anxiety rises and WTC falls
early on in communication, compared to mid-stream. Therefore, the
process of deciding to initiate communication appears to be an affec-
tively different context than the process of continuing to speak if one
stumbles over words.
To expand this study, we are currently exploring the non-verbal
behaviours that are indicative of WTC. The data from the original par-
ticipants are being used to study observers’ ratings of WTC. Observers
will be asked to watch each video under three conditions (auditory only,
video only, auditory + video), and, using the software for WTC ratings,
report on their perceptions of the learners’ WTC. The points at which
the data converge (the participants and the observers of the participants)
will be described as being markers indicative of high or low WTC. The
observers’ ratings also will be examined for consistency between modes
(visual, auditory, combination) to see the condition in which observers’
ratings are most strongly correlated with the learner’s own ratings. Both
of these studies share a focus on changes in affective processes over a
short period of time that will reveal more about the process by which
anxiety affects learning, where the ‘rubber meets the road.’

Thinking about anxiety through a process-oriented lens, we visual-
ize the affective processes as fast-moving, like a spinning CD, changing
quickly and always coming around again. Therefore, we are becoming
convinced that affect in general, and anxiety in particular, is a part of
an ongoing cycle, and should not be approached in strict cause-effect
terms. For this reason, it is not particularly helpful to ask “Is anxiety a
cause or an effect of poor language performance?” as some researchers
have done in the past (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991; Young, 1986). Imagine
a situation in which a young man says “Hello” to a young lady, a non-
English speaker. She recognizes the non-verbal behaviour as a friendly
greeting, but becomes a little nervous because the language is unfamil-
iar. For a moment, she hesitates to respond, somewhat unsure if she
can hold up her end of a conversation in English. Very quickly, how-
ever, her anxiety-coping efforts begin, her extraverted personality urges
her to meet a new friend, so she draws on explicit linguistic knowledge
from the cognitive system to say, “Hello, how are you today?” – a phrase
she recently learned in class. The young man and woman each make a
new friend that day.
Even in such a brief exchange we see:
1. Affective reactions, such as rising and falling confidence, anxiety

and motivation, are evoked quickly and individual differences (e.g.,
extraversion can play a role).
2. Language in the form of grammar and vocabulary are produced.
3. Cognition is triggered (Why did he say hello to me? It’s just a
greeting. This is a chance to practise English with a native speaker).
4. Ongoing metacognition and self-evaluation also are relevant to
the linguistic exchanges (“Did I sound like a native speaker, or a
dummy?”).
Seymour Epstein (1993) contends that we experience ‘vibes’ that act as

precursors to cognition and behaviour and that these automatic, uncon-
scious, subtle and influential sensations are evoked by scanning our
memories for related events which will then colour future thought or
action. In the above example, a friendly vibe will keep the young lady
112 Affect
engaged, even though she is struggling with the language. A negative

vibe is likely to lead to avoidance of the whole conversation, and along
with it the lost opportunity for language practice. That is how important
affect can be, how quickly its effects can be experienced, and even this
brief example illustrates why affect must also be studied as a dynamic
process (see also Yashima, this volume).
Future directions

If affective reactions rise and fall quickly, with peaks and valleys to
be expected, how do we arrive at the sort of summative evaluations
of affect and experience that have been studied in much of the pre-
vious literature? Epstein (1993, p. 323) suggests, “A typical sequence
of behaviour is that an event occurs; the experiential system scans its
memory banks for related events; and vibes from the past events are
produced that influence conscious thoughts and behaviour.” Kahneman
and Riis (2005) give further evidence concerning how these ‘vibes’ might
be created. They distinguish between what they call the ‘experiencing
self’ (an introspective, in-the-moment response) and the ‘remembering
self’ (a reflective evaluation whose accuracy depends upon authentic
retrieval of feelings and reasonable integration of experiences spread
over time). For example, a language student might have several affec-
tively good and bad moments during a class. Those are the experiencing
selves. But if you ask this same student when the semester is over,
“How was the class?,” s/he would evoke the ‘remembering self,’ tend
to focus on the peak experiences relative to the number of low ones,
and come up with a summative judgement of the class. Endings tend
to have a commanding role in memory of experience; the way some-
thing ends disproportionately influences an individual’s memory for
affective evaluation of events at a later time (Fredrickson & Kahneman,
1993). Thus, language teachers need to be aware of the power of both
the ‘remembering selves’ and the ‘experiencing selves’ in creating the
‘vibes’ students feel as they approach the language learning process,
in both the short and long term. The ‘remembering self’ draws upon
the power of endings and high moments, while the ‘experiencing
self’ takes into account reactions to events as they happen. These in-
the-moment incidents may escape a learner’s reflective memory but
yet they will still shape the vibes that undergird future thoughts and
actions.
The importance of affective reactions behoves teachers and
researchers to elevate the importance of emotions to a prominent place
on our agendas. A recent and rapidly developing subfield of psychol-

ogy, positive psychology, might help shape future directions in this
field. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) suggest that the traditional
focus of psychology on healing the sick and fixing the broken has
neglected studying the fulfilled individual and the thriving community:
“The field of positive psychology at the subjective level is about val-
ued subjective experiences: well-being, contentment, and satisfaction
(in the past); hope and optimism (for the future); and flow and hap-

piness (in the present)” (p. 5). One of the major, early contributions
within positive psychology has been the development of the ‘broaden-
and-build’ theory of emotion (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Losada,
2005). This theory suggests that positive affect has a different function
in human development, and is qualitatively different from the more
widely studied group of negative affective reactions (including anxiety).
In brief, negative emotions tend to focus the individual on specific tasks,
obstacles or threats (e.g., an anxiety reaction to being embarrassed). Pos-
itive emotions, on the other hand, function to broaden our thinking
and build strengths (e.g., exploring the meanings inspired by a beau-
tiful work of art). Much more work needs to be done to focus on the
process by which positive emotions facilitate language learning, but
evidence from Gardner’s (e.g., 1985, 2009) research suggests that emo-
tions like interest, desire, and enjoyment play a significant role in that
process.
Conclusion: Considerations for pedagogy
As we contemplate the importance of understanding both negative and

positive affect in the language learning process, we must pay special
attention to the process of creating positive emotion. There is one ele-
ment on which positive psychologists agree: building communities,
social networks and intimate relationships make people happy. Diener
and Seligman (2002) discovered that the leading variables shared by
the 10 per cent of students with the highest levels of happiness and
fewer depressive symptoms were their solid relationships with friends
and, family, and commitment to spending time with them. We often
encounter pedagogical implications concerning the creation of support-
ive environments to lower language learners’ anxiety and increase their
motivation and WTC, but do we really translate that into action by
providing the opportunities inside and out of the classroom for stu-
dents to bond and build relationships that go beyond the last day
of class?
114 Affect

Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety (Research Timeline).
Language Teaching, 43, 154–167.
Perhaps the best starting point currently available for a person exploring
the topic of language anxiety is the annotated list of 44 ‘milestone’ papers
assembled under the expert eye of Professor Elaine Horwitz. Horwitz uses her
judgement of each included paper’s importance, impact, and prominence to
produce a collection of the key papers in this area.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The effects of induced anxiety on
cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 1–17.
This paper presents an analysis of the effects of language anxiety at three
stages of computer-assisted language learning: input, processing, and output.
It might be the only true experiment on language anxiety in the SLA literature
and, we believe, puts to rest any thought that anxiety is merely a side effect
of poor language performance. Anxiety was aroused by introducing a video
camera at various stages of computer-assisted learning (or not at all for a
control group). Results show that anxiety caused disruptions of language
learning and performance, and also that habituation to anxiety and coping
efforts can ameliorate its negative effects.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
This is one of the most frequently cited papers on language anxiety. The
authors blend experience gained from trying to cope with, and reduce, the
effects of language anxiety among students with three key conceptual foun-
dations drawn from literature outside SLA (communication apprehension, test
anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation). The result is a conceptualization of
language anxiety as distinct from other types of apprehension and a 33-item
scale researchers and teachers can use to measure the concept (the Foreign Lan-
guage Classroom Anxiety Scale). The authors provide all 33 items for interested
readers.
References
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope’s construct of for-
eign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language
Journal, 78, 155–168.
Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Foreign language anxiety and learning style.
Foreign Language Annals, 32, 63–76.
Baker, S., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in
communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50,
311–341.
Castro, O., & Peck, V. (2005). Learning styles and foreign language learning
difficulties. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 401–409.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition.

Cheng, Y. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign
Language Annals, 35, 647–656.
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differenti-
ating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417–446.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. (2002). Very happy people. Psychology Science, 13,
81–84.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2007). Predicting language learners’ grades in the L1, L2, L3 and

L4: The effect of some psychological and sociocognitive variables. International
Journal of Multilingualism, 4(3), 169–197.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). Why do some young learners drop foreign languages?
A focus on learner-internal variables. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 16(6), 635–649.
Dewaele, J.-M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional
intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and
foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical
investigation. Language Learning, 58, 911–960.
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). An exploration of adult language learner motivation, self-
efficacy, and anxiety. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways
to the new century (pp. 103–131). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic lan-
guage classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 206–220.
Ely, C. M. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and motiva-
tion in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36, 1–25.
Epstein, S. (1993). Emotion and self-theory. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 313–326). New York: Guilford Press.
Ewald, J. (2007). Foreign language learning anxiety in upper-level classes:
Involving students as researchers. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 122–142.
Frantzen, D., & Sieloff Magnan, S. (2005). Anxiety and the true beginner-
false beginner dynamic in beginning French and Spanish classes. The Modern
Language Journal, 38, 171–186.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:
The broaden and build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,
218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective eval-
uations of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
45–55.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics
of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2009). Gardner and Lambert (1959): Fifty Years and Counting.
Presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Applied
linguistics, Ottawa ON, May, 2009. Retrieved 9 November 2011 from http://
publish.uwo.ca/∼ gardner/docs/CAALOttawa2009talkc.pdf
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective
variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157–194.
116 Affect
Gregersen, T. (2003). To err is human: A reminder to teachers of language-anxious

students. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 25–32.
Gregersen, T. (2005). Nonverbal cues: Clues to the detection of foreign language
anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 388–400.
Gregersen, T. (2007a). Breaking the code of silence: An exploratory study of
teachers’ nonverbal decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety. Language
Teaching Research, 11(2), 51–64.
Gregersen, T. (2007b). Language learning beyond words: Incorporating body lan-
guage into classroom activities. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 6(1),

1–15.
Gregersen, T. (2009). Recognizing visual and auditory cues in the detection of
foreign language anxiety. TESL Canada Journal, 26, 46–64.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism:
anxious and non-anxious language learners’ responses to their own oral
performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 562–570.
Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a
Foreign Language Anxiety Scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559–562.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to
classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kahneman, D., & Riis, J. (2005). Living, and thinking about it: Two perspectives
on life. In F. A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being
(pp. 285–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning?:
A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 1–32.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language
teachers. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learn-
ing: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 24–45).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning:
Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39, 251–275.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Methods and results in the study of
anxiety in language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41,
85–117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Language anxiety: Its relation to other
anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning,
41, 513–534.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991c). Investigating language class anxiety
using the focused essay technique. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 296–304.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994a). The effects of induced anxiety on
cognitive processing in second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 16, 1–17.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994b). The subtle effects of language anx-
iety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44,
283–305.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willing-
ness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly
changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149–171.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996). Predicting strategy use from psychosocial
variables: A test of the social-psychological model. Foreign Language Annals, 29,
373–386.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Factors associated with
foreign language anxiety. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 217–239.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Cognitive, affective, person-
ality, and demographic predictors of foreign-language achievement. The Journal
of Educational Research, 94(1), 3–15.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (2002). The role of foreign language

anxiety and students’ expectations in foreign language learning, Research in the
Schools, 9(1), 33–50.
Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a second language students and English
language anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom. Research in the Teaching
of English, 36, 327–355.
Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Inter-
views with highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Lan-
guage anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101–108).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sanchez-Herrero, S. A., & Sanchez, M. P. (1992). The predictive validation of an
instrument designed to measure student anxiety in learning a foreign language.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 961–966.
Saito, Y., Garza, T. J., & Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 83, 202–218.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of
the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 129–142.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduc-
tion. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Sellers, V. D. (2000). Anxiety and reading comprehension in Spanish as a foreign
language. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 512–520.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences:
Affective or native language aptitude differences? The Modern Language Journal,
75, 3–16.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors
in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. The Modern Language
Journal, 79, 235–244.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxi-
ety Scale measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language Annals, 40,
260–287.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term rela-
tionships among early first language skills, second language aptitude, second
language affect, and later second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics,
30, 725–755.
Spielmann, G., & Rodnofsky, M. (2001). Learning language under tension:
New directions from a qualitative study. The Modern Language Journal, 85,
259–278.
Vogely, A. J. (1998). Listening comprehension anxiety: Students’ reported sources
and solutions. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 67–80.
Woodrow, L. (2006). A model of adaptive language learning. The Modern Language
Journal, 90, 297–319.
118 Affect
Yan, J., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety inter-
acts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in
English: A qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning, 58,
151–183.
Young, D. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral
proficiency ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 439–445.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does
the anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426–439.
9
Willingness to Communicate:
Momentary Volition that Results
in L2 Behaviour

Tomoko Yashima
Introduction
It is a common perception among language teachers that the acquisition

of L2 competency does not necessarily lead to communication in the
L2. As MacIntyre (2007) puts it, “even after studying language for many
years, some L2 learners do not turn into L2 speakers” (p. 564). Research
on willingness to communicate in an L2 (L2 WTC) has attempted to
shed some light on this enigma. L2 WTC is particularly significant from
a pedagogical perspective because L2 communication is a necessary part
of L2 learning. As many researchers agree, L2 competency develops
through productive use of the language (e.g., Swain, 1995).
Further, in naturalistic settings outside the classroom, learners seek
jobs, make friends, or maintain or break relationships using the lan-
guage they are learning. If they are unwilling to communicate, they
will not learn the language since they will not develop social networks,
and will thus fail to communicate. A vicious cycle sets in (Yashima,
Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). If they are to present themselves
fully, learners constantly have their personality and ability judged based
on their performance in a language that is not yet well-developed.
As MacIntyre and Legatto (2011, p. 149) note, “Some people are more
willing than others to accept this unusual communication situation,” a
situation in which self-esteem is at stake.
In this chapter, I will first review the development of this con-
struct through an overview of the literature and of different approaches
to research on the topic. Second, I will describe examples of cur-
rent research in this field. Finally, future directions for research and
pedagogical implications will be discussed.
119
120 Willingness to Communicate
Theoretical perspective
WTC research originates in scholars’ interest in unwillingness to com-

municate as a personality trait (Burgoon, 1976). Personality traits are
patterns of thought or behaviour that tend to be stable within an indi-
vidual across situations and over time (for a more thorough discussion
of personality traits see Dewaele’s Chapter 4 in this volume), and it is
worth noting that the beginnings of WTC research were in this area

as this has considerably influenced the subsequent development of the
field. This interest in why certain people were unwilling to communi-
cate evolved into research in WTC, which is defined as the probability
of engaging in communication when given a choice. Early research
(e.g., McCroskey & Richmond, 1987) was based on the assumption that,
although this is largely contextually dependent, individuals exhibit reg-
ular WTC tendencies across situations. The methodology of this early
WTC research – a topic I will return to later in the chapter – was also
based on many of the assumptions of personality psychology of the
time, employing quantitative instruments to measure personality vari-
ables. For example, the scale developed by McCroskey and Richmond
encompassed four different communication contexts – speaking in
dyads, in small groups, in meetings, and publicly – with three types
of receivers – strangers, acquaintances, and friends – and was thor-
oughly validated through a series of investigations (e.g., McCroskey,
1992). Research results show that L1 WTC is related to introversion,
communication apprehension, perceived communication competence,
and self-esteem (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). It was also found that
the WTC scale is a valid predictor of actual communication. Chan and
McCroskey (1987) show, for example, that college students with high
WTC scores were observed to participate more in class than those with
lower scores.
L2 WTC
Early WTC research was concerned with L1 communication but it
was not long before scholars began to consider possible applications
within the field of L2 learning. The first significant interest came
from a group of Canadian social psychologists who had been con-
ducting extensive research on anxiety, attitudes, and motivation in L2
learning (for details, see Dörnyei, 2005). L1 WTC research stimulated
MacIntyre and associates to conceptualize L2 WTC as a construct that
captures a number of individual and contextual variables that influence
Tomoko Yashima 121
a learner’s tendency to communicate in an L2 (e.g., MacIntyre & Charos,

1996; MacIntyre & Clément, 1996). In these studies, path models –
statistical models used to explain relationships, including cause and
effect, between variables – were constructed and tested, incorporat-
ing WTC and other individual difference variables whose influence
on L2 acquisition had been studied independently. These include
extraversion/introversion (see Dewaele, Chapter 4, this volume), anxiety
(see MacIntyre & Gregersen, this Chapter 8, volume), integrativeness,

and motivation (see Ushioda, Chapter 5, this volume). These studies led
to the pyramid model of WTC discussed in the next section.
The pyramid model

While L1 WTC is regarded as a personality variable, L2 WTC is not
a simple transfer from L1 WTC, as there is much greater variation in
competence among L2 users. MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels
(1998) presented a conceptualization of L2 WTC as the “readiness to
enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons,
using a L2” (p. 547). The idea of WTC as a convergence of different indi-
vidual and situational variables resulting in L2 behaviour is schematized
in the pyramid model (MacIntyre et al., 1998). This model (Figure 9.1)
integrates psychological, linguistic, educational, and communicative
approaches to L2 research and it shows how both trait variables, those
tendencies that are stable within the individual across time and situ-
ations, and state variables, which are specific to a particular situation,
influence the decision to communicate in the L2 at given points
in time.
At the lower levels of the pyramid, layers IV, V, VI in Figure 9.1,
are more stable variables including, at the base, intergroup climate
and personality, which are hypothesized to have an indirect influ-
ence on L2 WTC. In the fifth layer are each individual’s affective and
cognitive contexts that underlie all communication events, includ-
ing attitude towards different groups, perception of social situations
and communicative competence. The fourth layer consists of motiva-
tional propensities, which affect decisions to initiate communication
with a particular group or a particular individual as well as the fairly
stable sense of being confident about communicating in the L2. L2
self-confidence comprises a cognitive component, namely how one
perceives one’s L2 competence, and an affective component, namely
anxiety about using the L2. The upper layers of the pyramid consist
of state variables, for example in the third layer are two immediate
Layer I Communication behaviour

L2 Use
Layer II Willingness to Behavioural intention

communicate
3 4

Desire to State
Layer III communicate with communicative Situated antecedents
a specific person self-confidence
5 6 7
Layer IV L2 Motivational propensities

Interpersonal Intergroup
Self-
motivation motivation
confidence
8 9 10
Layer V Intergroup Social Communicative

Affective-cognitive context
attitudes situation competence
11 12
Layer VI Social and individual context

Intergroup climate Personality
Figure 9.1 Heuristic model of variables influencing L2 WTC
precursors of WTC: a desire to communicate with a specific person at

a specific moment as well as the situated or state self-confidence that
partly reflects more enduring self-confidence in using the L2. The sec-
ond layer from the top shows WTC in the L2, which is the culmination
of the processes described in the layers below. The model emphasizes the
communicative goal of L2 learning/teaching, in which L2 proficiency is
not regarded as the goal of learning an L2 per se but is seen as a means
to achieve interpersonal/intercultural goals.
This model has since stimulated research in various learning contexts,
and a substantial amount of quantitative research has been conducted
with the aim of validating the model and identifying other factors
that may influence L2 WTC. Reflecting the concerns of Canada as a
bilingual nation, Baker and MacIntyre (2000) studied the influence of
the learning context (e.g., immersion versus non-immersion) on WTC,
while Clément, Baker, and MacIntyre (2003) focused on context, norms,
and ethnolinguistic vitality (see glossary). These researchers found that
immersion students and the minority group (francophones) were more
willing to communicate than their counterparts. Other variables studied
Tomoko Yashima 123
in Canada include L2 learning orientations – the reasons an individ-

ual wishes to learn an L2, social support (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, &
Conrod, 2001), and age and gender (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, &
Donovan, 2002), all of which were found to influence WTC in French
to some degree.
The WTC model has been applied to English as a foreign language
(EFL) contexts outside Canada to investigate factors that affect Asian
learners’ WTC in English. In my own studies (e.g., Yashima, 2002;

Yashima et al., 2004) in the Japanese EFL context, I introduced a context-
specific attitudinal construct, international posture, in an attempt to
capture attitudes towards the international community, an interest in
an international vocation, and the tendency to approach and commu-
nicate with intercultural partners. My associates and I examined the
relationships among motivation, self-confidence, international posture,
and L2 WTC. Using a statistical procedure called structural equation
modelling, we found that those who are high in international posture
tend to be more motivated to study English and more willing to com-
municate in the language. A study conducted with Chinese EFL learners
also employed structural equation modelling and reported that class-
room contextual variables such as teacher support and learners’ beliefs
about how to learn English, as well as appropriate learning behaviours,
had some influence on L2 WTC in classrooms (Peng & Woodrow, 2010).
Many of these quantitative studies use McCroskey’s original con-
struct, which conceptualizes WTC as an individual trait, while others use
somewhat more situated WTC scales that I will discuss later. Research
consistently found that L2 WTC leads to a higher frequency in L2 com-
munication and was predicted by L2 self-confidence (Clément et al.,
2003; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004).
Attitudes including integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situ-
ation, and international posture have also been found to relate to WTC
in varying degrees.
Two components of L2 confidence, namely anxiety and perceived
communicative competence, contribute differently to WTC in differ-
ent language learning contexts. Anxiety predicts L2 confidence to a
larger extent in situations where use of the L2 is high, as in immer-
sion contexts, while perceived competence has a stronger influence
on WTC among non-immersion students (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000;
MacIntyre et al., 2002). Their explanation is that chances to use the L2
in non-immersion contexts are limited and, therefore, communicative
competence tends to be lower compared with immersion contexts. Con-
sequently, how one perceives one’s competence has a large weight in
determining one’s WTC. By contrast, immersion students have real-

life opportunities to apply what they have learned, and with higher
expectancy and pressure to perform, anxiety becomes a central fac-
tor. This pattern is confirmed by studies conducted in EFL contexts,
where the amount of L2 use is relatively low and where perceived
communicative competence has a stronger influence on L2 WTC than
does anxiety (Peng & Woodrow, 2010; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al.,
2004). We might say that compared to FL situations, immersion –

and possibly other second language situations – are closer to L1 situa-
tions, where anxiety is the single best predictor of WTC (McCroskey &
Richmond, 1991).
Approaches to research on the construct
The development and use of scales

As I mentioned in the earlier discussion of the origins of WTC research,
the dominant methodologies of personality psychology have influ-
enced both conceptualizations of WTC and approaches to researching
the concept. This has resulted in a prominent role for the use and
development of scales in researching WTC, and one highly influential
scale is the one developed by McCroskey (1992). While McCroskey’s
WTC scale is a well-validated instrument and useful in assessing an
individual’s general tendency to communicate, some researchers have
pointed out problems in using the generic trait measurement scale
in analysing WTC in L2 classrooms (Cao & Philp, 2006; MacIntyre
et al., 2001). Some researchers, therefore, have attempted to develop
situation-specific scales. MacIntyre et al. (2001) developed measures to
assess skill-specific L2 WTC, that is, WTC in speaking, listening, reading,
and writing, both inside and outside classrooms. In a technical paper,
Weaver (2005) examined the psychometric properties of his own 33-
item scale designed to measure language learners’ willingness to speak
and write in language classrooms. He selected items after studying what
communication activities are most likely to take place in Japanese EFL
classrooms, such as “Do a role play in English at your desk,” or “Ask
in English the meaning of a word you do not know.” McCroskey and
Richmond’s (1987) original scale asked respondents to indicate the per-
centage of time (from 0 meaning never to 100 meaning always) they
would choose to communicate in given situations. MacIntyre et al.
(2001) changed this to a standard 5-point scale. Weaver then intro-
duced a new 4-point rating scale, the psychometric properties of which
he confirmed using the Rasch model (see glossary for an explanation).
Tomoko Yashima 125
Weaver’s items were then adapted and reduced to ten items by Peng
and Woodrow (2010) to examine WTC in Chinese EFL classrooms. Ryan
(2008) created a shorter L2 WTC scale consisting of eight items adapted
from McCroskey’s original version on a 6-point scale (with high internal
consistency). Ryan administered the measure with 2397 Japanese stu-
dents together with many other motivational and affective constructs to
be tested in the Japanese context. The short version is particularly use-
ful for researchers who typically administer questionnaires consisting of

several different scales and who need to make each scale compact.
Situational and dynamic WTC (from quantitative

to qualitative research)
In addition to the mostly quantitative research conducted in the early
days, qualitative studies carried out more recently have focused on sit-
uational and dynamic aspects of L2 WTC. Kang (2005) attempted to
examine how situational L2 WTC emerges dynamically. Through an
experiment using pairs of Korean learners of English and native speak-
ers, she found that the decision to communicate in a particular situation
is mediated by three psychological variables: security, excitement, and
responsibility. Security refers to a feeling of being free of fear in L2 com-
munication, a condition that is shaped mainly by relative familiarity
among the interlocutors and familiarity with the topic. Excitement is
“a feeling of elation about the act of talking” (Kang, 2005, p. 284). This
condition depends on interest among interlocutors in the topic of the
conversation as well as on the expression of interest, attention, and
response among the partners. Finally, responsibility is felt when the par-
ticipants feel a strong need to gain information, when they themselves
introduced the topic, or when the topic is one that the participants are
knowledgeable about. Moreover, as the number of participants in a con-
versation decreases, responsibility increases. In sum, feelings of security,
excitement, and responsibility are created through a combination of
situational variables including topics, interlocutors, and conversational
contexts and result in situated WTC.
Cao and Philp (2006) also focused on situational L2 WTC in instruc-
tional contexts. Claiming that a generic self-report questionnaire may
not be valid in assessing situational classroom-related WTC, they first
examined correlations among the level of WTC as trait, assessed with
a scale adapted from McCroskey and Richmond (1987) and the levels
of WTC in different instructional situations. The researchers observed
and assessed situated WTC in classrooms in three different interac-
tional situations (pair work, group work, and whole class). They found
no correlations between trait WTC and situational WTC nor in WTC

across three interactional situations. They also found that the level
of WTC differed substantially across interactional situations. In inter-
views with learners, four factors emerged as having the most impact
on WTC: group size, self-confidence, familiarity with interlocutors, and
interlocutor participation in the conversation.
Most recently, MacIntyre and Legatto (2011) used a dynamic systems
approach (see glossary) to research in WTC, examining moment-to-

moment fluctuations in level of WTC (see also MacIntyre & Gregersen,
Chapter 8, this volume). I will discuss this study in detail later. For now,
I will explore the cultural dimensions of WTC.
Culture and WTC

North American cultural values are reflected in the original concep-
tualization of WTC. As McCroskey and Richmond (1991) indicate, in
North American culture, “in most instances the more a person com-
municates, up to a very high extreme, the more positively the person
is evaluated” (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991, pp. 19–20). Specifically
because of this cultural value and attitude towards speech, L2 WTC is
of particular relevance to EFL learners, as Yashima et al. (2004) describe
through the experiences of Japanese high school students in the USA.
In their struggle to communicate in order to make friends with their
American peer group, Japanese learners face a double handicap through
their low level of competence in English and the cultural expectation of
a great deal of speech being produced in social situations in the USA (and
probably in other English-speaking cultures to different degrees)
(Yashima, 2004).
Further, this original conceptualization of WTC suggests that care is
required when it is applied to other cultures. Wen and Clément’s (2003)
theoretical work addressed this issue. Focusing on two notable features
of Chinese interpersonal relations, the tendency to care very much
about evaluation by others and to submit to authority, they presented a
Chinese culture-specific model of L2 WTC. In their proposed model, the
researchers added variables that would mediate desire to communicate
and WTC (on the third and second levels in MacIntyre et al.’s (1998)
pyramid model), including group cohesiveness and teacher support as
well as personality factors such as risk-taking and tolerance of ambi-
guity, among others. Central to their claim are Chinese cultural values
based on Confucianism that emphasize social relationships, concern for
evaluation by others, and the need for affiliation, which create unique
classroom situations that are different from Western L2 classrooms.
Tomoko Yashima 127
Another promising research direction is to consider how power rela-

tions involving gender, ethnicity, class, social roles, and the history
of relationships influence the participants’ WTC in interactions. Thus,
incorporating socially and culturally structured aspects of willingness to
communicate in the L2 should set a new research agenda and is a nec-
essary step to make WTC research more ecological (see glossary for an
explanation of ecological research).
While some researchers try to situate WTC in sociocultural contexts,

psychological research on WTC is moving towards micro analyses of
the dynamic nature of WTC, which I will discuss in the next section.
I will also discuss pedagogically oriented studies, my colleagues and
I conducted, that focus on changes in WTC in different instructional
contexts. I will start with our research that uses more traditional research
methods on WTC.
Current research in the dynamic (evolving) nature of WTC
The history of WTC research is relatively short, yet has seen amazingly
fast development. Generally, the focus of current research is on the
dynamic aspect of WTC. Being more of a quantitative researcher, my
approach to this goal has been to employ quasi-experimental methods.
My colleagues and I investigated how WTC and/or frequency of commu-
nication undergo changes as a result of educational practice (Yashima &
Zenuk-Nishide, 2008) and study abroad experiences (Yashima, 2009).
These studies also raise questions about the scales required to assess the
dynamic aspect of WTC, which is discussed later. The first study was con-
ducted at a Japanese high school where content-based L2 instruction in
global studies (with a Model United Nations) is a feature of education.
TOEFL scores, international posture, L2 WTC, and frequency of commu-
nication in L2 were assessed in the participants’ first and third years, and
we compared a study abroad group and two stay-home groups. (The two
stay-home groups learn in two separate programmes with different class
hours and emphasis in education). The results indicate that proficiency
and frequency of communication changed significantly with all three
groups. The study abroad group demonstrated a clear advantage in most
of the indicators over groups who stayed home, showing much larger
increases. Trait WTC assessed through the original scale by McCroskey
and Richmond (1987), however, did not change significantly in any of
the three groups. Subsequently a cluster analysis delineated three clus-
ters that show clearly distinct developmental patterns among those who
stayed home. One of them exhibited a developmental profile similar to
the study abroad group. The majority of students in this cluster had
studied in the programme with a heavier emphasis on global studies
content. We concluded that the development in proficiency, frequency
of communication and international posture can take place when the
learners fully participate in a community of practice of learners and
teachers that links to an imagined international community through
global studies content.
The second study (Yashima, 2009), attempts to capture students’

development through their participation in a somewhat more real inter-
national community of practice. I investigated the effects of interna-
tional volunteer experience on the affect of learners of English through
using English. The participants of the study are 265 college students
who joined in international volunteer work projects and a control group
of 109 students who did not participate in the projects. Participants
live and work together in a youth community of about 10–20 people
from all over the world for about three weeks. In pretests it was revealed
that those who had previous experience of study abroad (mostly home
stay) showed a significantly lower level of anxiety, higher level of WTC,
and scored higher in a parameter named “Having things to commu-
nicate” than those who never had such an experience. In addition, as
participants in the project and non-participants were different in all of
the parameters already in pretests, ANCOVA was conducted to assess
changes that occurred through the project controlling the pre-existing
differences. The results indicated that participants gained in WTC and
felt that they had more to communicate than non-participants. Further,
through ANOVA, participants of the project were shown to substan-
tially reduce the level of L2 anxiety. In this study I used a more situated
scale of WTC adapted from Ryan (2008), and found that WTC increased
significantly through the experience.
The results of the two studies imply that trait WTC is robust and
does not change much over time and that we need a scale that is sus-
ceptible to change to capture the dynamic aspect of WTC. The two
studies also indicate that changes in the level of L2 WTC and fre-
quency of communication were brought about through collaborative
work as well as through participation in an English-speaking imagined
or real community such as Model United Nations and international
volunteer work.
While quasi-experimental methods assess changes in WTC levels mea-
sured at different points in time, MacIntyre and his associates attempt
to capture moment-to-moment dynamics of WTC (a detailed example
of this can be found in MacIntyre & Gregersen, Chapter 8, this vol-
ume). With their research on ambivalence about communicating in
Tomoko Yashima 129
the L2 (MacIntyre, Burns, & Jessome, 2011), MacIntyre and colleagues

made a significant departure from the conceptual and operational defi-
nition of WTC as a bipolar continuum from not willing to very willing
to communicate. Focusing on the psychology of adolescent immersion
learners, they demonstrated that one can feel both willing and unwill-
ing to communicate in certain situations. An analysis of diary entries by
junior high school students revealed that situations where students were
most willing to communicate were similar or even identical to those

in which they were least willing. Subtle features of the communica-
tion context involving location, interlocutor, and how the interaction
unfolded determined whether the students were willing or unwilling.
This implies that a slight change in any one detail in the interac-
tion can lead the same person to initiate communication or remain
silent.
The next step taken up by MacIntyre and his associates was to exam-
ine fluctuations in WTC from a dynamic systems perspective, focusing
on its evolution. This is quite timely at a time when Dynamic Systems
Theory is gaining momentum (Dörnyei, 2009; Larsen-Freeman, 2007) as
a promising theoretical perspective in accounting for SLA.
MacIntyre and Legatto (2011) investigated fluctuations in WTC over
a very short time period using the new ‘idiodynamic method,’ which
researchers developed to capture the dynamics in the speaker’s affective
state. Their research investigates:
• the extent to which different tasks affect the level of WTC and/or
amount of speaking time;
• the extent to which WTC varies over time;
• attributions that participants make for increases and decreases in
their WTC levels.
Six female participants first answered a paper-and-pencil survey of L2

affect including trait WTC and then responded to seven communicative
tasks (e.g., describe what you are wearing, discuss the role of Parlia-
ment in the Canadian system of government), which were videotaped
and transcribed. After completing the tasks, the respondents rated their
WTC on computer by moving a mouse while watching a video recording
of their performance shown on the same computer screen using soft-
ware developed by the researchers. This was followed by a review and
discussion with the participants of how and why their WTC fluctuated.
Results showed that WTC fluctuated dramatically over the few min-
utes during which the participants were performing the tasks. Consis-
tent patterns were also observed regarding the influence of the tasks
themselves, such as a decline in WTC in certain (supposedly less famil-

iar) tasks than in others. Consistency within individuals was observed,
as some participants showed high dynamic WTC all through while oth-
ers had low and flat WTC. Respondents often attributed their decline in
dynamic WTC to a perceived lack of competence and vocabulary knowl-
edge relative to what was required to perform the task. Topic shifts also
seem to be a major determiner of changes in WTC. Through this investi-
gation, the researchers explored the applicability of the dynamic systems

approach to WTC. MacIntyre and Legatto (2011) maintain that changes
in WTC levels and the participants’ cognitive appraisal of their affective
state constitute evidence of key properties of dynamic systems.
In this section I have introduced two types of current research into
WTC, which I hope provide some indication of the rapidly changing
research landscape and point to possible future directions. Though they
are methodologically different, both approaches described here try to
capture changes in WTC over time. The strength of the approach that
I have adopted, along with my colleagues, is that it is firmly embed-
ded in sociocultural practice, enabling us to focus on the effects of
educational intervention. In more recent work, MacIntyre and his asso-
ciates have sought to expand the research agenda, both theoretically
and methodologically. Here I have described a basic, yet innovative,
psychological laboratory experiment which focuses on changes in WTC
as a dynamic cognitive/affective system. The different approaches to
research described in this section suggest that as the field develops and
matures, L2 WTC research is likely to experience considerable method-
ological innovation and diversification, as researchers gradually move
away from the field’s narrow quantitative origins.
Future directions for research
As the studies discussed in the previous section indicate, WTC research

has expanded its scope to represent a wide range of interests. A number
of directions for future research can now be suggested. These include the
following:
1. The approach taking a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective should

be pursued as it allows the analysis of WTC as a dynamic system that
changes in response to changes of all the other variables that might
affect WTC within that system. With the development of the idio-
dynamic method, which allows for micro analyses, follow-up studies
using that method could be performed to respond to a number of
Tomoko Yashima 131
questions including: How and in what way does WTC change over a
short time due to factors other than topic shift and perceived diffi-
culty of the task, that is, changes in the interlocutor(s), the number
of interlocutors, and the interlocutors’ responsiveness?
2. From a completely different research tradition, we might investigate
the influence of power relations (gender/status differences/NS ver-
sus NNS) on WTC. In recent years, applied linguistics has seen a
great deal of what is broadly termed sociocultural research, which

shows the real-life contexts in which the learners are situated – how
immigrants and/or sojourners’ L2 use is constrained in power rela-
tions between native speakers and newcomers to the community
(e.g., Morita, 2004; Norton, 2000). These studies show that willing-
ness (or unwillingness) to communicate is socially structured within
inequitable power relations. L2 WTC research offers a chance to com-
plement this work by accounting for the individual differences in
participants’ initiative to change “the dynamism of interactions by
themselves rather than leaving it to the empathy and/or control” of
others in intercultural interactions (Yashima et al., 2004, p. 122).
3. From a pedagogical perspective, of utmost concern is how we can
change learners’ WTC so as to help it grow. I introduced two exam-
ples from our studies above. However, more research is still needed to
assess the effects of educational practice on changes in WTC levels.
Enhancing L2 WTC through pedagogy

Finally, I discuss insights from research in L2 WTC that have implica-
tions for pedagogy. Based on research using the original WTC scale, it
has been suggested that a combination of a familiar interlocutor and a
dyad or a small group may lead to higher WTC. Studies in Japan indi-
cate that international posture (Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004)
and international empathy and interest (Ryan, 2008) predict WTC in
English. This suggests that including materials that heighten learners’
awareness of international affairs in L2 learning should be effective in
encouraging greater WTC in EFL learners. Another study of Japanese
EFL learners indicates that learners’ L2 WTC can be enhanced through
online chatting as they are free of the anxiety involved in face-to-
face communication (Freiermuth, 2006). The effects of channels of
communication on WTC are worth investigating.
Qualitative studies are particularly powerful in suggesting concretely
in what pedagogical situations learners may be more or less willing to
communicate. Kang’s (2005) results indicate that familiar topics create
a sense of security on the part of the learners but that the learners also
need to be interested in the topic to be stimulated to talk. Another useful
insight was that a topic that triggers a sense of responsibility places pos-
itive pressure to talk on the participant, thus boosting WTC. MacIntyre
and Legatto (2011) also show that if learners build up vocabulary related
to the topic, this will heighten their sense of self-efficacy and WTC at
the moment of talking. Moreover, the speakers’ WTC is affected not
only by familiarity with the interlocutors but also by how they respond

and whether they are eager and attentive, as Kang (2005) and Cao and
Philp (2006) indicate. This suggests that learners also need to learn to
be good listeners, through pair work, for example, so that they can
enhance mutual WTC and thus learn that communication is interactive
and dynamic.
Although a topic is usually given to participants in research tasks
and in classrooms, L2 users in real-life situations need to be able to
introduce topics of their own to initiate communication. In classrooms,
learners should be given chances to contribute to discussions by intro-
ducing topics. From a sociocultural perspective, it is crucial to create
a community of practice in L2 learning in which students participate
and move towards assuming an increasingly central role, for example,
through discussion. To achieve this, the learners’ sense of which com-
munity they are to participate in and therefore the concept of imagined
L2 community becomes relevant. As one moves from the periphery to
centre through problem solving and other collaborative activities, one’s
communicative skills, sense of responsibility, and self-concept change,
and so does WTC.
Conclusion
Studies of WTC began as quantitative, macro level investigations of

rather stable variables, but have gradually moved towards micro analy-
ses of how momentary volition leads to L2 behaviour in each individual.
Also conceivable are analyses of WTC situated in sociocultural contexts.
What is probably needed is to link micro and macro level analyses of
WTC among changing individuals and contexts.
Communication is an inherently social process. It takes at least two
people to communicate. This somewhat contradicts the notion of WTC
as an individual tendency. In this sense, although a psychological con-
struct of WTC is measurable as an individual’s attribute using a scale,
WTC can only be enhanced and developed through social processes and
communicating with others. It takes two to tango. Yet each person needs
Tomoko Yashima 133
to be willing to dance. WTC may be created in collaborative work, yet

how much an individual is willing to participate crucially affects the
outcome.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence

and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
This theoretical paper presents the first comprehensive model of WTC in an
L2. This heuristic model includes both trait and situated and psychological
and intergroup variables hypothesized to influence L2 WTC. An explanation
of each variable together with its theoretical and research background will
help those wishing to explore the conceptualization of WTC.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate:
A cognitive view. In M. Both-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition, and
anxiety (pp. 19–37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
This paper is an introduction to the original concept of WTC as a personality
construct and its measurement scale. It also summarizes a number of studies
that examine intercorrelations between WTC and its antecedents and effects.
tion. Language Learning, 54, 119–152.
One of the first empirical studies on WTC conducted in EFL contexts, exam-
ining the relations among variables influencing WTC. A context-specific
variable, international posture, is introduced to capture EFL learners’ atti-
tudes towards international communities. The paper also shows that L2 WTC
predicts the amount of L2 communication in a study abroad context.
References
Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion
in communication and second language orientation. Language Learning, 50,
311–341.
Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness to communicate scale: Development
and validation. Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate:
A comparison of behavior in whole class, group, and dyadic interaction. System,
34, 480–493.
Chan, B., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The WTC scale as a predictor of classroom
participation. Communication Research Reports, 4, 47–50.
Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate
in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and validity. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 22, 190–209.
second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

University Press.
Freiermuth, M. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help?
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 190–213.
Kang, S. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate
in a second language. System, 33, 277–292.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second
language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 773–787.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language:

Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern
Language Journal, 91, 564–576.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to
communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion
students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age
effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2
motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language
Learning, 52, 537–564.
MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communi-
cating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’
willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 81–96.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as pre-
dictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 15, 3–26.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Clément, R. (1996). A model of willingness to communicate in a
second language: The concept, its antecedents, and implications. Paper presented at
the 11th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Jyväskylä, Finland.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and
affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willing-
ness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly
changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149–171.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communi-
cate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16–25.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate.
In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communi-
cation (pp. 129–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cog-
nitive view. In M. Both-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition, and anxiety
(pp. 19–37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language
academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573–601.
change. London: Longman.
Peng, J.-E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English:
A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60,
834–876.
Tomoko Yashima 135
Ryan, S. (2008). The ideal selves of Japanese learners of English. Unpublished Ph.D
thesis, University of Nottingham.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In
G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practices in applied linguistics: Stud-
ies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Weaver, C. (2005). Using the Rasch model to develop a measure of second
language learners’ willingness to communicate within a language classroom.
Journal of Applied Measurement, 6, 396–415.

Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to
communicate in ESL. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 16, 18–38.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The
Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
Yashima, T. (2004). Dainigengo komyunikeshonto ibunkatekio (Second language
communication and intercultural adaptation). Tokyo: Tagashuppan.
Yashima, T. (2009). Kaigaikenshu niyoru eigojoiyouinno hennka: Kokusai borantiano
baai (Using English in a study abroad program: Participants in international
volunteer projects). JACET Journal, 49, 57–69.
Yashima, T., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008). The impact of learning contexts on pro-
ficiency, attitudes, and L2 communication: Creating an imagined international
community. System, 36, 566–585.
tion. Language Learning, 54, 119–152.
10
Strategies: The Interface of Styles,
Strategies, and Motivation on Tasks
Andrew D. Cohen

Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to consider the psychological dimensions of

language learner strategies in an effort to make the construct more acces-
sible to those working in the field of language learning. The chapter will
also call attention to issues of theoretical debate and demonstrate how
case-study research can contribute to understanding the process of lan-
guage learning. The case is made that viewing strategies in isolation is
not as beneficial to learners and instructors alike as viewing them at
the intersection of learning style preferences, motivation, and specific
second-language (L2) tasks.
Language learner strategies: Classifications, research, and practice

The construct language learner strategies has been defined – and conse-
quently researched – in numerous ways over the years. My own working
definition is:
Thoughts and actions, consciously chosen and operationalized by

language learners, to assist them in carrying out a multiplicity of
tasks from the very onset of learning to the most advanced levels
of target-language performance.
The element of choice is crucial because this is what gives a strat-

egy its special character. Note that the notion of consciousness is part
of the definition of strategies although there is some controversy here.
In my view, the element of consciousness is what distinguishes strategies
from those processes that are not strategic. Strategies have been further
classified in various ways – for example, strategies for language learning
versus language use, strategies by language skill area, and strategies
136
Andrew D. Cohen 137
according to function (namely, metacognitive, cognitive, affective, or

social).
As an outgrowth of a meeting of 23 international scholars who met
in June 2004 at Oxford University to ‘push the envelope’ on lan-
guage learning and language use, I conducted a survey among these
experts to determine their take on terms and issues (Cohen, 2007). The
results of the survey underscored a paradox of language learner strat-
egy research. While the field fascinates researchers and teachers alike –

possibly because there is a sense that effective language learning and use
depends in part on strategies – there is still a lack of consensus as to a
unified theory. The survey found, for example, a lack of consensus as
to how conscious of and attentive to their language behaviours learners
need to be in order for those behaviours to be considered ‘strategies,’ as
opposed to being thought of simply as ‘processes.’ In reviewing the lit-
erature on consciousness and attention, Dörnyei (2009, pp. 132–135)
points out that consciousness is, in his words, “a notoriously vague
term” and that attention actually refers to “a variety of mechanisms or
subsystems, including alertness, orientation, detection, facilitation, and
inhibition.” So, if learners are conscious (even peripherally) that they
are skimming a portion of text in order to avoid a lengthy explanation,
then the move would be termed a ‘strategy.’
The survey also found some disagreement as to the extent to which
a behaviour needs to have a mental component, a goal, an action, a
metacognitive component (involving planning, monitoring, and evalu-
ation of the strategy), and a potential that its use will lead to learning,
for it to be considered a strategy. There was, however, consensus that
strategies are generally not used in isolation, but rather in sequences
(e.g., strategies for looking up a word in a dictionary) or clusters (e.g.,
strategies for preparing a written summary of a text). This fact is often
overlooked in studies which report on strategies as if the isolated use of
each were the norm. In addition, two contrasting views about strategies
emerged, each with its merits:
(1) that the actual strategies that learners use to complete tasks are likely
to be detailed, specific, and combined in sequences or clusters with
other strategies;
(2) that it is best to conceptualize strategies at a more global, flexible,
and general level.
I personally ascribe to the detailed approach to strategies and
strategizing, as can be seen from the Spanish Grammar Strategies website
launched in July 2009.1
138 Strategies
With regard to the purposes for language learner strategies, there was
agreement that strategies enhance performance in language learning
and use, both in general and on specific tasks. There was also consensus
that strategies are used to help make language learning and use easier,
faster, and more enjoyable. The survey also found that these experts did
not favour the view that language strategies are used to compensate for a
language deficit. My own feeling is that strategies still serve in a compen-
satory fashion in numerous instances. The respondents generally agreed

that whereas the use of learner strategies can lead to enhanced auton-
omy, being an autonomous learner does not necessarily imply that the
learner is drawing selectively and effectively on a refined repertoire of
strategies.
In a chapter on learner strategies, we would be remiss in not point-
ing out that at present there are those who would use self-regulation in
place of the term ‘strategies.’ But doing so leaves unanswered the ques-
tion as to what learners do to self-regulate? The answer is that they use
strategies. In his most recent book on the psychology of second lan-
guage acquisition (SLA), Dörnyei (2009, p. 183) minimizes the value of
looking at language learner strategies altogether since what learners do
is better viewed as “idiosyncratic self-regulated behaviour, and a particu-
lar learning behaviour can be strategic for one learner and non-strategic
for another.” Similarly, Oxford (2011) embraces a self-regulation model
for L2 learning, but unlike Dörnyei’s approach, in Oxford’s model, learn-
ers actively and constructively use strategies (and lower-level tactics) to
manage their own learning. So, the compromise position would be to
include self-regulation as perhaps an umbrella notion when referring
to language learners and to also include the strategies that they use for
both learning and performing in an L2. (For more on self-regulation, see
Pemberton & Cooker’s Chapter 14 on self-directed learning.)
As a means for better understanding research on language learner
strategies, let us now consider some of the ways such strategies have
been classified.2
Language learning versus language use strategies

One means of classification is by distinguishing strategies for the learn-
ing of language material for the first time from strategies for using the
material that has already been learned, at least to some degree (see
Cohen & Weaver, 2006). Language learning strategies include strate-
gies for identifying the material that needs to be learned, distinguishing
it from other material if need be, grouping it for easier learning (e.g.,
grouping vocabulary by category into nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs,
Andrew D. Cohen 139
and so forth), having repeated contact with the material (e.g., through
classroom tasks or the completion of homework assignments), and
formally committing to memory whatever material is not acquired
naturally through exposure. Krashen (1991) popularized a distinction
between language material which is learned consciously (say, as the con-
sequence of explicit teaching by an instructor or self-instruction) and
material which goes more directly into the acquisitional base. While
some material may follow the latter route, much of what learners gain

control over probably starts as explicit knowledge and is converted into
implicit knowledge through practice (see Dörnyei, 2009, pp. 159–161).
In contrast to language learning strategies, language use strategies put
the emphasis on learners making use of the material at whatever their
current level of mastery, and involve at least four subsets of strategies:
retrieval strategies, rehearsal strategies, coping strategies, and communi-
cation strategies. Retrieval strategies are used to call up language material
from storage by means of whatever memory searching strategies the
learner can muster. Rehearsal strategies are usually deployed to pre-
pare the learner for language use (e.g., rehearsing the subjunctive in
Spanish to ask the boss for a day off). Coping strategies are of two
kinds – compensatory strategies used if specific language knowledge
is lacking (e.g., lexical avoidance, simplification, and approximation
through paraphrasing or word invention) and cover strategies used to
create an appearance of language ability so as not to look unprepared,
foolish, or even stupid (e.g., using a memorized and perhaps only par-
tially understood phrase in, say, a classroom drill in order to keep the
action going).
Communication strategies have been viewed as the verbal (or non-
verbal) first-aid devices that may be used to deal with problems or
breakdowns in communication. They may be used to steer the con-
versation away from problematic areas, to express meaning in creative
ways (e.g., by paraphrasing a word or concept), to create more time to
think, and to negotiate the difficult parts of their communication with
their conversation partner until everything is clear (such as through
facial expressions or gestures). They also include conversational strate-
gies, including asking for help, seeking clarification or confirmation, and
using fillers (such as uh and uhm) when pausing while speaking (see
Erard, 2007 for further discussion), along with other hesitation devices
such as word repetition.
Undoubtedly the distinction between language learning and use
strategies can be fuzzy at times. Oxford (2011, pp. 90–91) in fact con-
tends that the distinction is inappropriate since learning can only be
140 Strategies
accomplished through language use. But I would maintain that for

many language learners much of what they ‘learn,’ especially in lan-
guage classes, never makes it to real-world communication. As such, this
learning versus use distinction is based not on theory and on poten-
tial, but rather on the way both the learning and, more importantly,
the forgetting of language (i.e., language attrition) show up in the real
world.
Some strategies contribute directly to learning, such as strategies for

memorizing vocabulary (e.g., the use of keyword mnemonics) or strate-
gies for organizing grammatical structures (e.g., the use of charts which
emphasize and contrast the key features of the structures to be learned).
Other strategies, perhaps the bulk of them, have as their main goal that
of using the language – for example, verifying that the choice of vocabu-
lary produced the intended results or that grammatical inflections were
appropriate for a given context. Further, some strategies are behavioural
and can be directly observed (e.g., asking a clarification question), others
are behavioural but not easily observable (e.g., using a short paraphrase
rather than a long circumlocution), and others are purely mentalistic
and not directly observable (e.g., making mental translations into the
native language for clarification while reading). In order to identify
them, such mentalistic strategies must be accessed through means other
than observation, such as through the collection of verbal report data
(i.e., think-aloud, introspection and retrospection, and self-report; see
Cohen, 2011, pp. 78–86).
Language strategies by skill area

A second way to classify strategies is by skill area. Bearing in mind that a
skill constitutes the ability to do something (such as looking up a word
in a dictionary or paraphrasing a text), strategies are the means used
to carry out tasks involving this skill. So, strategies can be viewed in
terms of their role while engaged in both the receptive skills of listening
and reading, and the productive skills of speaking and writing. Strate-
gies are also used for skills that crosscut these basic skill areas, such
as the learning and use of vocabulary and grammar. As the Spanish
Grammar Strategies website at CARLA (Centre for Advanced Research on
Language Acquisition at the University of Minnesota) illustrates, deal-
ing with grammar offers a rich area for strategy development. The use
of strategies can be an effective way to remember problematic grammar
rules, when to use them, and how to apply them. Another strategy area
that crosscuts all four skills is that of translation. For example, while
many students prefer to think in the L2 and to translate as little as
Andrew D. Cohen 141
possible from their first language (L1), some learners may prefer to write
out their text in their native language first and then translate it into the
L2 (see Cohen & Brooks-Carson, 2001).3
Language strategies by function

A third way to classify strategies is in terms of their function, namely,
metacognitive, cognitive, affective, or social (Chamot, 1987; Oxford,
1990). Metacognitive strategies deal with pre-assessment and pre-

planning, online planning and monitoring, and post-evaluation of
language learning activities and of language use events. Such strate-
gies allow learners to control their own cognition by coordinating the
planning and organization of strategy use, the monitoring of their use,
and the evaluation of how effective the use was in the learning pro-
cess. Cognitive strategies involve the awareness, perception, reasoning,
and conceptualizing processes that learners undertake in both learning
the target language (e.g., identification, grouping, retention, and storage
of language material) and in activating their knowledge (e.g., retrieval
of language material, rehearsal, and comprehension or production of
words, phrases, and other elements of the target language). Social strate-
gies encompass the means employed by learners for interacting with
other learners and native speakers, such as through asking questions to
clarify social roles and relationships, asking for an explanation or verifi-
cation, and cooperating with others in order to complete tasks. Finally,
affective strategies help students regulate their emotions, motivation,
and attitudes.4
A problem with trying to distinguish strategies in terms of the func-
tions that they play is that the distinctions are not so clear-cut. In other
words, the same strategy, say “ongoing summarization of the text being
read,” may be interpretable as either cognitive or metacognitive. Indeed,
it might not be possible to draw the line neatly between what would be
viewed as the metacognitive strategies aimed at planning out how to
summarize a text and then evaluating the results, on the one hand, and
the cognitive strategies associated with summarizing the text such as
that of reconceptualizing a given paragraph at a higher level of abstrac-
tion, on the other. It is likely that both types of strategies may be
deployed simultaneously in an overlapping way. In that case, delin-
eating whether the strategy is cognitive or metacognitive could be
problematic. In fact, the same strategy may function at different levels
of abstraction. For instance, skipping an example in the text so as not to
lose the train of thought may reflect a metacognitive strategy (i.e., part
of a conscious plan not to get distracted by detail), as well as a cognitive
142 Strategies
strategy to avoid material that would not assist in working out the gist
of the text.
Linking strategies to learning style preferences,

motivation, and tasks
Language learning and use strategies do not operate in a vacuum, but
rather are directly tied to learners’ underlying learning style prefer-
ences (i.e., their general approaches to and preferred ways of learning).5

It has been pointed out that each style preference makes its contribu-
tion to learning and that consequently learners benefit from identifying
their style preferences, viewing these as a ‘comfort zone,’ and stretching
their comfort zone through practice (Oxford, 2001). (See Chapter 11 by
Griffiths for more on learning style preferences.)
It is possible for a learner to have a robust repertoire of language
learner strategies and yet not make progress in language learning
because of a lack of motivation to do so. Just because the strate-
gies are available does not mean that they will be accessed. Equally,
learners need strategies to keep motivated. Dörnyei (2002) popularized
the notion of motivation as a dynamic process in a continuous pro-
cess of change. It was in the spirit of this view that an instrument
was constructed, Taking My Motivational Temperature on a Language
Task (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2001), with the intention that it be adminis-
tered before, during, and after a group of learners do an L2 language
task in class. More recently, Dörnyei and Ushioda have embraced
a sociodynamic perspective on motivation, involving the interaction
of motivation with numerous internal, social, and contextual factors
(Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, pp. 75–90). (See also Ushioda’s Chapter 5
on motivation in this volume.) My own bias is to continue to make
use of the Motivational Temperature Measure with the caveat that some
learners will be better able than others to describe how their motiva-
tion to perform a given task fluctuates as they perform it. While this
measure gives only a partial picture of learners’ motivation, the insights
gained in a given context may still provide helpful insights to learners
and to their teachers as well, especially about those frustrating learning
moments which dissuade a learner from forging ahead.
Finally, it is important to call attention to the effect that a particular
task might have on the choice of strategies, as well as on the effective-
ness of the selected strategy or set of strategies. Just as there are differing
views as to what language learner strategies are, so there are differing
views as to what constitute L2 pedagogic tasks (Samuda & Bygate, 2008,
pp. 62–70). Learners’ perceptions of the tasks are likely to determine
Andrew D. Cohen 143
whether learners will persevere to the end of the given task or not.
Learners are most likely to warm up to tasks perceived to be relevant,
interesting, and doable.
Over the years, numerous approaches have been used for conducting
research on language learner strategies. Oxford (2011, Chapter 7) pro-

vides an updated discussion of both quantitative methods, involving
experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental research, and
qualitative methods involving phenomenology, grounded theory, case
studies, ethnographies, and narratives. A key instrument for data col-
lection has been a language strategy survey, often administered to a
large group in order to determine their reported strategy use patterns
(see Oxford, 2011, pp. 156–166, for details, and Macaro, 2010 – in the
suggested further reading below, – for misgivings about this approach).
The qualitative approach shared here is that of multiple case-study
work, an outgrowth of a course that I have been teaching at the Univer-
sity of Minnesota since 2001, “Practical Language Learning for Interna-
tional Communication.” The course provides students with background
on the learning of an L2 and on language and culture strategies for
maximizing study abroad. Students assume the role of researchers in
that they need to collect and analyse data on their own language learn-
ing and that of their peers. The case studies include data on learning
style preferences (using Cohen, Oxford, & Chi, 2002b), language strat-
egy repertoire (using Cohen, Oxford, & Chi, 2002a), and motivational
fluctuation (using Cohen & Dörnyei, 2001) on two language tasks, con-
ducted both as self-study for their midterm paper and then as a study of
three peers of their own choosing as their final course project.6
Of the 47 students taking the course in Autumn 2010, 22 agreed to
have their midterm papers in the data set. About 17 of these also agreed
to have their final paper included, each with three case studies, so there
were 41 case studies from the study of other learners, bringing the grand
total to 63 in this multi-case-study effort. A close analysis of these case
studies identified 20 studies that most effectively illustrated how learn-
ing style preferences, strategy choices, and motivational fluctuation
come together in the performance of L2 tasks. Prior to this study, my ref-
erences to the close-knit intersection of styles, strategies, and motivation
on specific tasks had been limited to hypothetical data (Cohen, 2003).
The following are three samples from the 20 case studies that
are available in their entirety at: https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/
144 Strategies
andrewdcohen/projects (accessed 16 February 2011). They are intended

to illustrate how styles, strategies, and motivation intersect in L2 tasks.
The ideas here are those reported to me by the students themselves,
though I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing some of the text to make
it more succinct, and I have also reorganized it in order to highlight the
relationships among styles, strategies, and motivation on tasks.
Rochelle – a senior, majoring in Asian Languages and Literature, and

prior Spanish study in high school.
Task: watching a Japanese drama without using subtitles, with the

goal to understand as much of the episode as possible.
The visuals for this show were so powerful that Rochelle could use
the strategy of watching without worrying about catching every word
because she knew that they would show plot while they talked about it.
Her strategy of refraining from consulting a dictionary made her style-
stretch since her desire to get clarity about new vocabulary would have
her check a dictionary to discover what a certain word actually meant,
or at least pause to write down all of the words that needed to be fur-
ther addressed.7 Some words stuck in her memory, and so she looked
them up that night to discover that even though they had repeated
ninkyou (generosity, heroism) and koi (intention, request) many times,
learning the meaning of the words did not lead to secret ‘aha!’ moments
regarding the plot.
Another instance where Rochelle needed to rely on a less preferred
learning style during the listening task was when it came to open-versus
closure-oriented learning. Having no script or translation for the story
ahead of time meant that she had to allow a lot of openness towards
the assignment. After getting over the fact that she was not going to
understand everything and knowing that it did not count against her
to miss some details, it really was not so bad to simply try to let the
video drama ‘soak in.’ She found it an interesting approach to, in her
words, “abolish an attempt at complete accuracy and understanding,”
though she did wonder whether she was laughing about the same thing
as intended in the show.
The task kept her attentive and curious during the entire show. The
motivation to understand the drama was purely to increase personal
enjoyment. As she put it, “No comprehension check would be turned
in, no extra credit would be earned, but I still felt like watching another
episode and doing it again after finishing.”
Andrew D. Cohen 145
Bethany – a junior majoring in Elementary Education, with her last

study of an L2 being high-school Spanish four years earlier.
Task: attending a Spanish conversation group session for 45 minutes

with six others at a café near campus.
Bethany saw her decision to attend a conversation group despite not

having taken a Spanish class for four years as evidence of her preference

to be extraverted and impulsive. She got to engage in a social envi-
ronment, meet new people, and even visit with a friend. She reported
understanding the gist of what was said to her, and used the strategy of
asking for clarification when she did not. She also reported being able to
communicate although as she put it, “I often had to creatively express
myself” (e.g., using an English word, using a Spanish synonym, or even
inventing a Spanish word). She also used the strategy of asking for help
when she could not remember specific words. Her motivation was low at
the outset but increased as she got into the task. She reported being more
concerned about communicating meaning than about making mistakes,
revealing her impulsive learning style preference. Receiving feedback –
whether positive (a nod or smile when she used phrases correctly) or
negative (a correction on a grammar mistake) – was highly motivating
for her. Several of her preferred strategies were utilized, such as asking
others either to repeat themselves, provide a word definition, or slow
down the speed of their conversation when she did not understand.
As a result of this social atmosphere, by the time she had finished the
task, she had a strong desire to complete a similar task in the future.
Nicole – a senior, majoring in Spanish and Portuguese.
Task: attending a Portuguese conversation hour and interacting with

fellow students of Portuguese and a native speaker.
Nicole was highly motivated before attending the conversation hour.

Her self-confidence, however, was not very high since many others had
better Portuguese-speaking skills than she did, which made her feel self-
conscious and caused her to employ social strategies which she would
have preferred to avoid, such as pretending to understand so as to not
feel left out. She nonetheless used effective speaking strategies such
as imitating speech which sounded particularly idiomatic and asking
for help from her conversation partner. Since she tried to avoid think-
ing in English, she found herself asking for the equivalents of Spanish
words and made guesses about Portuguese words based on her Spanish
146 Strategies
vocabulary (e.g., converting the suffix –ción to –ção and hoping that it
would fit with the common pattern of relationships between Spanish
and Portuguese nouns and that it was actually a word). She viewed
using translation techniques from Spanish rather than from English as
‘cheating.’ She also used the strategy of rehearsal before saying anything,
consistent with a more reflective approach to language performance.
This bolstered her confidence when she did speak, but the strategy was
sometimes detrimental in that by the time she had decided how she

wanted to contribute to the conversation, the speakers may already have
moved on to another topic.
Nicole found that while she spent the majority of her time listen-
ing, she was also bolstering her comprehension through visual stimuli,
such as looking at the expressions on her speaking partners’ faces and
the gestures that they used. In addition, she catered to her kinaesthetic
style preference (reportedly as high as her visual preference) by putting
her legs up on the chair and playing with her pen and cell phone. She
viewed making herself physically comfortable as a strategy which influ-
enced her affect and made her less concerned about committing errors,
since her body language was broadcasting that it was a casual encounter.
Her detail-oriented style preference also emerged in that she noticed
details in the language, such as whether someone chose to use the
preterit or the imperfect tense, and she tried to analyse why they had
chosen that tense and which tense she would have used in that context.
At times she missed what was being said in the conversation because she
was lost in her own language analysis. Although she considered herself
more closure-oriented, she felt herself becoming more open during this
task because it was in an informal, non-academic context. She could
relax more, knowing that she was not going to be tested on what she
was hearing so she did not have to worry about comprehending every-
thing. She started having fun and stopped comparing her language skills
to those of others so much. Her motivation was high after completing
this activity and she looked forward to doing it again the next week.
What makes this type of research unusual and potentially beneficial is
that by transforming learners into their own data gatherers and anal-
ysers, both of their own data (for the midterm paper) and of three
other learners (the final paper), they come away from the exercise with
heightened awareness about language learning and use. They acquire a
keen sense at the operational level of just what learning styles, language
strategies, and motivation on specific tasks can look like. I stress the
importance of their choosing two different kinds of tasks so that they
can experience task effect (e.g., a speaking versus a reading task).
Andrew D. Cohen 147

for pedagogy
In an ideal language learner situation, learners become informed con-

sumers of L2s at an early age, maximize their experiences in and out of
class, and become life-long users of a host of languages, thus enriching
their interactions with others in numerous speech communities around
the world, and enhancing their employment prospects and performance

globally (see Cohen & White, 2008 for more on this approach). Learners
would start their language learning trajectory by taking a learning style
preference measure and a language strategy inventory to see how style
preferences and language strategy choices relate to each other. If the fit is
not good, then the learners would vary their strategy repertoire or style-
stretch to match their preferred strategy choices. We need more research
to determine the extent to which this informed consumerism is actually
taking place.
Beyond creating more savvy language learners is the need to fur-
ther the work in specific domains of strategy use, such as strategies
for grammar and for pragmatics (see Ishihara & Cohen, 2010), and
to further develop websites where this information can be posted to
the international community. In addition, strategy instruction needs to
be integrated into language instruction so that learners are provided
with an opportunity to enhance their language learning experiences.
Although language learners around the world are becoming increasingly
multilingual, multilingual skills are not necessarily being developed at
a level that would be considered ‘professional.’ So there is a need for
strategy instruction and corresponding research dealing with advanced
L2 ability. Another concern is how learners can be strategic in their
efforts to guard against attrition of L2 attainments – another variable
to add to the study of L2 attrition (see Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2010).
In addition, given the accumulation of studies looking just at frequency
of strategy use (e.g., see Cohen, 2011), there is a commensurate need to
look at knowledge about the strategies that language learners actually
use (not just report using), how they use them, and the effectiveness
of these strategies as used by the given learners over time (e.g., Cohen,
Pinilla-Herrera, Thompson, & Witzig, 2011).
Finally, a current line of investigation looks at how the strategies used
by individual learners may vary from one learning context to another.
In an autobiographical case study, for example, He (2002) described how
her choice of strategies shifted according to the phase of her life that
she was in, as she studied English in six different phases. She reported
148 Strategies
mostly using cognitive and metacognitive strategies in school, but made

greater use of metacognitive strategies as an independent learner (see
also Gao, 2010).
These are just some suggestions for both research and practice in the
field of language learner strategies. If we are truly to link theory with
practice, we need to demonstrate how theory and research contributes
in a significant way to enhancing the experiences of language learners
in and outside of the classroom.

Notes
1. http://www.carla.umn.edu/strategies/sp_grammar/index.html; accessed on
14 February 2011.
2. For a discussion of others ways that strategies can be classified (e.g., by
age, proficiency-level, gender, and by specific language or culture) see Cohen
(2011).
3. For a skills-based inventory of language strategy use developed by Cohen et al.
(2002a).
4. Oxford (2011) revisits these basic distinctions, providing new distinctions
within and among them.
5. The Learning Style Survey (Cohen et al., 2002b) encompasses perceptual, cog-
nitive, and personality-related style categories, and has helped hundreds of
language learners at the University of Minnesota to heighten their awareness
of their style preferences.
6. A link to the Autumn 2010 syllabus for the course, with detailed instruc-
tions to students regarding both the midterm and the final projects,
can be found at https: //sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/projects
(accessed 16 February 2011).
7. Rochelle used the term from the Learning Style Survey, sharpener, to describe
herself – someone who wants to get distinctions clear when committing
material to memory, while a leveler is willing to have blurriness.

Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow:
Longman/Pearson Education.
This book provides theoretical perspectives and practical suggestions for
language learning practitioners, students, and researchers regarding how to
provide strategy instruction and how to conduct research on L2 strategies.
In demonstrating why self-regulated learning strategies are necessary for lan-
guage proficiency, the book integrates sociocultural, cognitive, and affective
dimensions.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.).
Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.
Andrew D. Cohen 149
This book brings together a series of different themes united by their focus on
L2 learners and their strategies. It offers an updated look at language learner
strategies, helping to sort out terminology and providing suggestions on how
to do research in this area, especially with regard to verbal report techniques.
Macaro, E. (2010). The relationship between strategic behaviour and language
learning success. In E. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum companion to second language
acquisition (pp. 268–299). London: Continuum.
Macaro problematizes what success at language learning actually means, and

the relationship between strategic behaviour and language learning success.
Rather than using large-scale questionnaires to study learning processes, he rec-
ommends having learners provide concurrent and retrospective verbal reports
while engaged in specific learning- or skills-based tasks.
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D. (2010). Variables in second language attrition:
Advancing the state of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(1),
1–45.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden &
J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71–84). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do
styles, strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 41(4), 279–291.
Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: Surveying
the experts. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30
years of research and practice (pp. 29–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.).
Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct vs. translated writ-
ing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2),
169–188.
Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Taking my motivational tempera-
ture on a language task. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research
on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Retrieved 14 Febru-
ary 2011 from https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/docments/
2001-Cohen%26DornyeiTakingMy MotivationalTemperature.pdf
Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (2002a). The language strategy use
survey. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acqui-
sition, University of Minnesota. Retrieved 14 February 2011 from https://sites.
google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/docments/2002-Cohen%2COxrord%2
C%26ChiLanguageStrategyUseSurvey.pdf
Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (2002b). Learning style survey: Assess-
ing your own learning styles. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research
on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Retrieved 14 Febru-
ary 2011 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/strategies/sp_grammar/pdf_files/
CohenOxfordChi-StyleSurvey.pdf
150 Strategies
Cohen, A. D., Pinilla-Herrera, A., Thompson, J. R., & Witzig, L. E. (2011). Com-
municating grammatically: Evaluating a learner strategies website for Spanish
grammar. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 145–172.
Cohen, A. D., & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles and strategies-based instruction: A teach-
ers’ guide. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Cohen, A. D., & White, C. (2008). Language learners as informed consumers of
language instruction. In A. Stavans & I. Kupferberg (Eds.), Studies in language
and language education: Essays in honor of Elite Olshtain (pp. 185–205). Jerusalem:

The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences in second language acquisition
(pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
University Press.
Erard, M. (2007). Um: Slips, stumbles, and verbal blunders, and what they mean.
New York: Pantheon.
Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
He, A. (2002). Learning English in different linguistic and socio-cultural contexts.
Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 107–121.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where
language and culture meet. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.
Krashen, S. D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.),
Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1991 (pp. 409–431).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House/HarperCollins.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second language (pp. 359–366). Boston: Heinle and
Heinle.
Longman/Pearson Education.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
11
Learning Styles: Traversing
the Quagmire
Carol Griffiths

Introduction
On first acquaintance, the language learning style concept is intuitively

appealing. Understanding it has the potential to greatly enhance learn-
ing and to make learning more enjoyable and successful. It is a concept
that acknowledges individual differences, rather than seeing all learn-
ers as similar. For teachers, it presents an opportunity to offer students
methodologies and materials appropriate to their own learning style
preferences. For learners, it allows them the freedom to learn in ways
which are enjoyable and can help them to become the best that they
are capable of.
However, in the literature one soon finds oneself bogged down in
a “quagmire” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 120) of conflicting definitions, con-
cepts, models, theories, and inventories. Amid the confusion, one might
be tempted to conclude that any potential benefits are not worth
the effort required to address the multitude of questions clamouring
for answers. Yet, there remains “something genuinely appealing about
the notion” (ibid.) of language learning styles. If only we as teach-
ers could work with them effectively, what a wonderful tool they
could be.
To begin to understand the potential offered by an appreciation of
learner styles, we need to look first at how learning styles are defined and
differentiated from other constructs, at the characteristics of language
learning styles, at how they are identified, labelled and categorized, and
to review insights from previous research in the area. In this chapter,
I will begin by considering various understandings of the style con-
struct and will then report on one aspect of a study investigating the
style preferences of tertiary-level English as a foreign language (EFL)
151
152 Learning Styles
learners. I will conclude the chapter by considering the implications of

the literature and this study for future research and pedagogy.
Literature overview
What are learning styles?

Learning styles have been defined as “an individual’s natural, habitual

and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new infor-
mation and skills” (Reid, 1995, p. viii). This definition has proven to be
enduring, but the existence of other closely related concepts has caused
much confusion. Therefore, when considering what learning styles are,
it is helpful to begin by considering what they are NOT.
The first related construct that needs to be differentiated from learn-
ing styles is cognitive styles, which Dörnyei (2005, p. 125) defines as
“an individual’s preferred and habitual modes of perceiving, remember-
ing, organizing, processing, and representing information.” Although
he has done a lot of work on the concept, Riding (2000, p. 365, cited in
Dörnyei, 2005, p. 126) concedes that the “study of cognitive style has
been rightly criticized for being vague.” Dörnyei (2005, p. 125) suggests
that the difference between cognitive and learning style is that cogni-
tive styles are “devoid of any educational and situational/environmental
interferences, thereby allowing for a ‘purer’ definition.” In other words,
cognitive style refers to how individuals think, process information and
solve problems in general. As such, it is a broader concept than learning
style, which is more focused on how an individual acquires and retains
new understanding or knowledge.
Another concept that, although often closely related, is NOT the same
as styles is strategies (Macaro, 2006; Oxford, 1990, 2011; see Cohen,
Chapter 10, this volume). Griffiths (2008a, p. 87) has defined strategies
as “activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulat-
ing their own language learning.” In other words, they are what learners
DO. In contrast, styles tend to describe learners or their learning prefer-
ences. Although strategy choice may to some extent be determined by
students’ stylistic preferences (see Cohen, Chapter 10, this volume), the
two concepts are actually quite distinct. As Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, and
Daley (2000, p. 118) explain: “It should be noted that learning styles
are not the same as learning strategies. . . . Whereas learning styles rep-
resent unintentional, or automatic individual characteristics, learning
strategies are actions chosen by students that are intended to facilitate
learning.”
Carol Griffiths 153
Personality is another area which should NOT be confused with style.

Frequently measured on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; origi-
nally published by Myers, 1962), personality is a very broad and basic
concept which is usually defined in terms of an individual’s personal,
emotional, and/or behavioural traits and may include the way they
interact with others (e.g., Ehrman, 2008). Learning style, on the other
hand, is limited to the way individuals prefer to learn. Although person-
ality may to some extent be a factor in determining stylistic preferences

(we might expect, for instance, that an extraverted personality would
tend towards a communicative, interactive, or cooperative style, rather
than working individually), the two concepts are different and should
not be confused (see Dewaele, Chapter 4; Lawrence, 1997, this volume).
Characteristics of learning styles

Having defined and differentiated learning styles from other related con-
structs, it is now important to turn our attention to the characteristics
of learning styles and how they have been understood. As Nel (2008)
points out, learning style is generally considered to be a relatively sta-
ble learner characteristic. Oxford (2011, p. 40), however, argues that
“although the learner may have some strong style tendencies, they are
not set in stone.” In particular, learners’ styles may vary according to
the context in which the learning occurs, since what works for a partic-
ular individual in one environment or for one particular task may not
work for others elsewhere engaged in different activities. According to
Reid (1987, p. 100), “learning styles are moderately strong habits rather
than intractable biological attributes, and thus they can be modified
and extended.” It may, therefore, be useful for learners to retain some
degree of stylistic flexibility if they are to be able to maximize learning
opportunities (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002).
Identifying, labelling, and categorizing learning styles

One of the salient characteristics of learning style research has been the
use of taxonomies which have attempted to identify, label, and cate-
gorize learning styles. In this section, I will consider some of the main
typologies used in the field and their insights for learning style research
over the years.
The learning style concept has been recognized in the field of edu-
cation since at least the mid-1970s. One of the earliest instruments
was the Learning Style Inventory by Dunn, Dunn, and Price (1975).
Although this inventory has undergone numerous adaptations over the
years (e.g., the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey; Dunn,
154 Learning Styles
Dunn, & Price, 1991), it originally divided learning style into five
domains of preference:
• Environmental (sound, light, temperature, design)

• Emotional (motivation, persistence, responsibility, structure)
• Sociological (learning alone, in pairs, with peers, in teams, with an
adult)
• Physiological (perceptual preference, food and drink intake, time of

day, mobility)
• Psychological (global or analytic preferences, impulsive, reflective).
Around the same time as Dunn et al.’s inventory appeared, Kolb pub-
lished his Learning Style Inventory (1976). According to Kolb’s model,
learning preferences can be described using two continua: active experi-
mentation versus reflective observation, and abstract conceptualization
versus concrete experience, resulting in four types of learners:
• Converger (active experimentation-abstract conceptualization).

Convergers tend to like to take different ideas and see if they work
in practice.
• Accommodator (active experimentation-concrete experience).
Accommodators like a hands-on approach.
• Assimilator (reflective observation-abstract conceptualization).
Assimilators like to take a logical, thoughtful approach.
• Diverger (reflective observation-concrete experience). Divergers pre-
fer to begin with the details and use these to construct the big
picture.
Gregorc (1979) continued the quadrant model for conceptualizing learn-

ing style when he produced The Gregorc Style Delineator with two
axes (concrete versus abstract, and sequential versus random) which
delineated four styles:
• Concrete Sequential (registering information through the five senses

in a step-by-step fashion).
• Concrete Random (registering information through the five senses in
no set order).
• Abstract Sequential (demonstrating the ability to visualize ideas and
order them in a linear fashion).
• Abstract Random (demonstrating ability to visualize ideas but not
necessarily in a set order).
Carol Griffiths 155
Then in the early 1980s, Honey and Mumford published their Manual of
Learning Styles (1982), which included their Learning Styles Question-
naire. Again, this new survey retained Kolb’s quadrant model but added
some new categories:
• Reflector (likes to be allowed to think things over).

• Theorist (likes to be allowed to think through issues and form
hypotheses).

• Pragmatist (likes to apply new learning to real situations to see if it
works).
• Activist (likes activity and new experiences).
Moving away from the quadrant model, Curry (1983) conceived of

style in terms of a metaphorical onion. The outer cognitive/personality
layer influences the information processing layer, which then con-
tributes to inner instructional preferences. This somewhat different
conceptualization of style also contributed to changing understandings
of styles by laying the ground for more interrelationships among stylis-
tic preferences, rather than seeing them as discrete and distinct from
one another.
Although Dunn et al.’s (1975) and Kolb’s (1976) inventories intro-
duced the style concept to the field of education in the mid-1970s, one
of the first well-known applications of the style concept to language
learning was by Reid (1987), who developed the Perceptual Learn-
ing Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) which was based on five
modalities:
• Visual (learning by seeing).

• Auditory (learning by hearing).
• Tactile (learning by touching).
• Kinaesthetic (learning by moving).
• Individual versus group preference.
In the same year, Willing (1987) conducted a large-scale survey of immi-

grants to Australia. Using a Kolb-style quadrant model, he used a twin-
axis framework (passive-active and analytic-holistic) which produced
four more learner types:
• Convergers (independent learners who can focus on component

parts).
• Conformists (those who are authority-oriented).
156 Learning Styles
• Concrete learners (those who are people-oriented).

• Communicative learners (those who are willing to take risks).
As we moved into the 1990s, Fleming and Mills (1992) produced

the VARK, another well-known instrument for measuring learning
styles. The acronym VARK stands for Visual, Aural, Read/write, and
Kinaesthetic, in other words, three sensory modalities to which a
literary/graphic preference was added, thereby adding yet another label

to the growing list of possible learning style preferences identified in the
bullet points above:
• Read/write (preferring to read or write things down).
The Style Analysis Survey (Oxford, 1993) analysed learning style accord-
ing to other preferences including:
• Intuitive random (describes those learners who can use intuition and
who do not depend on highly structured approaches).
• Concrete sequential (describes those learners who like a highly orga-
nized approach where new knowledge is presented on a step-by-step
basis).
• Closure-oriented/open (describes those learners who need certainty
versus those who can cope with more ambiguity).
• Global/analytic (describes those learners who look at the big picture
versus those who attend to the details).
Arguing that an inability to cope with uncertainty may limit learners’

ability to acquire new language, Ely (1995) developed the Second Lan-
guage Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale, thereby adding another dimension
to the list:
• Tolerance of ambiguity
In addition to the Style Analysis Survey (1993), Oxford also contributed

to the Learning Style Survey (Cohen, Oxford, & Chi, 2002) with yet
more style dimensions, including:
• Sharpener/leveller (emphasizing the differences rather than the

similarities).
• Global/particular (focusing on the big picture rather than on the
details).
Carol Griffiths 157
• Synthesizing/analytic (preferring to put things together rather than

look at them separately).
• Deductive/inductive (taking a top-down rather than a bottom-up
approach).
• Impulsive/reflective (preferring to act rather than spend too much
time thinking).
• Metaphoric/literal (preferring to look for underlying truths rather
than what is only on the surface).

• Field dependent/independent (dealing with discrete items rather
than holistically).
• Memorization (preferring to learn by committing things to memory).
Two years later, Ehrman and Leaver produced the Learning Style Ques-
tionnaire (LSQ) (2003), which operates between two poles: ectasis
(exercising conscious control) versus synopsis (relying on subconscious
processing). The LSQ employs other style types, including:
• Random/sequential (preferring not to learn in a set order versus

preferring a set sequence).
• Analogue/digital (preferring to learn in a meaningful context versus
taking a more literal approach).
• Concrete/abstract (preferring to learn through real materials versus
taking a more theoretical view).
As one runs an eye down the multitude of bullet points listed above, it
is difficult not to feel intimidated by the ‘quagmire’ they represent. And
this overview of style categories is by no means exhaustive, but merely
represents some of the better-known dimensions and taxonomies. In the
end, we are left with a bewildering and unwieldy list, the items of which
often seem to bear little relationship to each other or to what has gone
before and which often seem to have materialized with little or no actual
research or theoretical justification. Conflicting, overlapping, ambigu-
ous concepts abound, making comparisons across style surveys difficult.
This difficulty is compounded by the fact that many of the inventories
noted above are commercial products which are not readily available for
research purposes, leading some, such as Bonham (1988), to warn: “Let
the buyer beware.” It is important, however, to consider these multiple
taxonomies, since they have all, to a greater or lesser extent, influenced
the way the learning style concept has developed, been conceptualized
and researched.
158 Learning Styles
Previous research into learning styles
As can be seen above, there have been many attempts over the years to
identify, label, and categorize learning styles and to develop inventories.
However, studies that empirically investigate the concept in order to
explore the relationship between learning style and effective learning
are surprisingly difficult to find.
There have been a number of studies examining closely related con-

cepts such as cognitive style (e.g., Lee, Cheng, Rai, & Depickere, 2005;
Riding & Rayner, 1998), learning strategies (e.g., Cohen, Chapter 10,
this volume; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2008a) and personality
(e.g., Dewaele, Chapter 4, this volume; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989, 1990,
1995). Some of these (such as the Ehrman and Oxford studies, which
used the MBTI for personality) extended the implications of their find-
ings to learning style. However, there are remarkably few studies which
focus directly on learning style, although various aspects of learning
style have been investigated in isolation, such as the most commonly
researched, field in/dependence (e.g., Chapelle, 1988).
First introduced by Witkin (1962), the field in/dependent dimension
has been one of the most enduring and possibly the most controver-
sial concept in the learning style arena. Field dependent learners are
unable to separate details from the background, are more holistic or
global in their approach, and more concerned with the overall picture
than with particulars. Field independent learners, on the other hand,
are able to analyse tasks into sections and focus on discrete aspects.
The field in/dependent distinction has generated much debate over the
years (e.g., Chapelle, 1988; Ellis, 1994), not least over the validity of
the way the construct is assessed, usually by means of Witkin’s Embed-
ded Figures Test (1971), which requires students to discern patterns
among more complicated shapes, inevitably raising questions about
its relevance to language learning (see also Williams & Burden, 1997,
pp. 91–93). Further, field in/dependence is sometimes equated to or even
defined in terms of concepts such as global, holistic, analytic, particu-
lar, discrete, and so on, whereas at other times all of these concepts
are regarded as separate manifestations of learning style and are listed
separately in inventories. In addition, field in/dependence is sometimes
included as an aspect of personality or cognitive style (e.g., Riding &
Rayner, 1998), rendering its role as an aspect of learning style somewhat
dubious.
Where learning style has been researched directly with an appropri-
ate instrument, results have, in general, been less than overwhelmingly
Carol Griffiths 159
supportive of the usefulness of the learning style concept as a factor in

successful learning. Bailey et al. (2000), for instance, using the Productiv-
ity Environmental Preference Survey (Dunn et al., 1991) with a sample
of American college students, concluded that only a “modest propor-
tion of variance in foreign language achievement” could be explained
by the selected style variables, suggesting that “learning style may not
be a strong predictor of foreign language proficiency” (p. 126).
Since, however, as Nel (2008, p. 57) reminds us, “every learner does

have a learning style,” the question of whether some learning styles
might be better than others in terms of effective language learning
would seem to be important in order to inform teaching practice and
enhance learning. An example of research which aimed to explore this
question follows.
An example of research
The majority of research in respect to styles has used questionnaires
such as those outlined above. However, a growing recognition of the
potential impact of individual and situational variables on research
findings suggests the merits of a more contextualized approach where
instruments are specifically designed for a particular set of participants.
As Bailey et al. (2000, p. 129) suggest, “a situation-specific learning style
instrument written to elicit specific information on how students prefer
to learn foreign languages” might be more useful than the standardized
instruments that are commonly employed across contexts.
Recognition has also been growing of the usefulness of a qualitative
approach (see Cohen, this volume; Dörnyei, 2007; Nunan, 1992) in
language learning research. Qualitative approaches can take the form
of interviews, observations, think-aloud protocols, narratives and com-
mentaries, and can be especially useful as complements to quantitative
studies.
Thus, in order to further investigate the question of whether some
learning styles are better than others in terms of effective language learn-
ing, an exploratory study was conducted among students at a private,
English-medium university in Istanbul, Turkey. The students were study-
ing for a four-year bachelor’s degree in TEFL. Since these students were
in their fourth year at the university, they were already quite experi-
enced learners with an intermediate to advanced level of English. There
were 33 students in the class of whom a majority (29) were female, and
most of the students were in their early 20s.
The study used a questionnaire – the Inventory of Language Learning
Styles (ILLS; see Appendix 11A) – constructed from a selection of the
160 Learning Styles
style elements listed above chosen specifically to suit the characteristics

of the particular situation and research participants. For instance, since
these students were mostly young adults who were reasonably serious
about their studies, style items which were appropriate for such partici-
pants were selected for the inventory. Different items might have been
selected if, for instance, the participants had been younger or in a differ-
ent learning environment. For example, item 6 (by moving around) or
item 10 (with others) might not be included in a more ‘traditional’ set-

ting since in such classrooms students are frequently forbidden to move
out of their seats or to talk to classmates, so these style preferences are
simply not an option. Item 9 on correction was included because these
students had raised correction as an issue. However, in an environment
where correction is accepted as standard practice, it might not be con-
sidered a useful addition to the questionnaire. On the other hand, other
researchers might consider it worth exploring error correction prefer-
ences further by including more detailed items about HOW students like
to be corrected – implicitly, explicitly, immediately, publicly, and so on.
Although the questionnaire was restricted in length (since students can
resist lengthy questionnaires as is typical for many style inventories),
every attempt was made to include as many as possible of the dimen-
sions identified in the literature in as far as they were meaningful and
appropriate for the students in the current learning/research context.
Students were asked to rate these items on a Likert scale from 5 (strongly
agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).
These quantitative data were triangulated with qualitative data
obtained by means of comments which students included in an open
space alongside each item. Although students’ attention was drawn to
this column and they were asked to add any comments they felt would
help to explain the rating they gave, the learners were under no pressure
to do so and completing this column was voluntary. At the end of the
questionnaire, another space was left for students to make any further
comments they felt were appropriate.
The questionnaires were distributed to students who completed them
in their own time and returned them at their convenience (31 ques-
tionnaires were returned – 28 females and 3 males). Students’ end-of-
semester scores were obtained in the course of routine class assessment
procedures. Questionnaires were numbered in the order received and
the ratings were entered into SPSS and analysed for means. The end-
of-semester scores were also entered into the database and correlated
(Spearman’s rho) with the ratings to investigate whether particular
learning style preferences might be related to higher or lower grades.
Carol Griffiths 161
For the qualitative analysis, the comments from the students’ ques-
tionnaires were examined for content regarding common themes and
informative insights.
Findings
According to the average ratings (where 5 indicated the strongest level
of agreement and 1 indicated strong disagreement), the two style
preferences with which the respondents most strongly agreed were:

• by speaking in the target language – item 3 (average rating = 4.5)
• by hearing the language spoken – item 4 (average rating = 4.5)
This suggests a reasonably strong tendency to an aural/oral style among

these students. There was also quite strong agreement (in the agree to
strongly agree range) that they preferred to learn:
• in a pleasant environment – item 11 (average rating = 4.4)

• by means of reading – item 1 (average rating = 4.2)
• in the company of others – item 10 (average rating = 4.2)
• by seeing – item 5 (average rating = 4.0)
• by moving around – item 6 (average rating = 4.0)
These popular preferences suggest that environment is important for

these students who like to be able to move around and interact with
others. They also tend towards a visual style and like to learn by reading.
The least popular preferences, with average ratings of less than 3.5,
were learning:
• by memorization – item 12 (average rating = 2.8)

• by learning the rules – item 8 (average rating = 3.1)
• by concentrating on details – item 14 (average rating = 3.2)
• by being corrected – item 9 (average rating = 3.4)
These less popular items suggest that the students in this environment
do not like traditional memorization and rule-driven learning. They also
do not like excessive attention to detail or being corrected.
Perhaps more important than popularity is the question of what the
relationship between stylistic preferences and effective learning is. It is,
after all, possible that a popular style may not be effective in terms of
learning outcomes, or that an unpopular style preference may in fact
help lead to good results.
162 Learning Styles
In fact, none of the style items (whether popular or unpopular) had a

significant correlation (Spearman’s rho) with final grades in the course.
Indeed, the highest correlation (for “I like to learn language by speaking
in the target language”) was only .33, with the second highest (for “I like
to learn language in order”) only .26. According to the statistics, many
of the correlations (11 out of the 17) were actually negative, indicating
that preferences such as learning by memorization (item 12) were in fact
negatively related (R = –.28) to higher scores.

The qualitative data, consisting of comments added to the question-
naire by students, provide additional support for the lack of correlation
between stylistic preference and success in terms of final scores. The
comments are very mixed in terms of stylistic preferences and appear
to be highly individual. For example, with regard to a visual prefer-
ence (item 5), Student 20 suggests that diagrams and pictures help to
“make the knowledge more permanent,” whereas Student 17 declares
“not for me!” In regard to item 1, Student 15 expresses a preference for
learning by reading since “it helps me to understand . . . also it devel-
ops memorizing, pronunciation, fluency and accuracy” but Student 13
is rather negative: “I know that reading contributes language learning.
But personally I don’t like reading.” Reactions to item 6 on kinaesthetic
preferences also varied considerably. On the one hand, Student 2 objects
that a kinaesthetic style is not helpful “as an adult but in younger ages”
although her classmate, Student 13, suggests that “when students and
teachers are active language is learned better.”
As this sample of comments illustrates, student feedback on style pref-
erences was very varied, and there is really nothing to suggest that
particular stylistic preferences may be contributing to student success
in this context. This would therefore seem to lead to the conclu-
sion, in agreement with the results of Bailey et al.’s (2000) study, that
no particular style can be isolated as being important for success in
language learning for these learners. Instead success rather depends
on learners choosing a style which suits their own individual and
contextual needs.
Considerations for pedagogy and directions

for future research
While mindful of the small scale of this study, the quantitative and qual-
itative data obtained do seem to suggest that stylistic preferences appear
to have little relationship to successful grades for these students. In other
words, no one particular set of styles is more likely to lead to success
Carol Griffiths 163
than any other, which confirms conclusions reached elsewhere in the

literature (e.g., Nel, 2008; Reid, 1987).
The study reported in this chapter would thus seem to concur with
Nel’s (2008) conclusion that successful students employ a wide range of
different styles, and it would therefore follow that encouraging students
to adopt one style or another is unlikely to be helpful in terms of facil-
itating successful language learning. What, then, should teachers do in
relation to this particular learner variable?

A possible answer to these questions might lie in a consideration of
the case of Hiro, who did not take part in this particular exploratory
study (see Griffiths, 2008b). Hiro was a 64-year-old Japanese man who
decided to study English abroad since “I have worked hard all my life.
Now I am going to have some fun!” He experienced difficulties, how-
ever, adapting his familiar traditional style of learning to fit in with
the communicative teaching style favoured by his teacher. In order to
cope with this problem, he frequently opted out of classroom activities
and occupied himself with his notebook instead. This left his teacher
nervous that he was perhaps discontented with her teaching.
As Director of Studies, I consulted both Hiro and his teacher. In fact,
Hiro was a delightful student, who actually did well during his time in
the class – his preferred style was not affecting his learning negatively.
As for his teacher, once she was reassured that he was not dissatisfied,
she was happy enough to allow him the freedom to work in the style
with which he felt comfortable. This experience mirrors the conclusions
reached by Zhou (2011, p. 74), who recommended that since students
are likely to have a variety of learning styles, teachers should be pre-
pared to “change their own styles and strategies and provide a variety of
activities to meet the needs of different learning styles.”
Interestingly, as his course progressed, Hiro did steadily become more
‘communicative’, more willing to join in the activities of the class, less
threatened by the fear of losing face in front of younger classmates. This
supports the idea that, although learning style may be a relatively fixed
individual characteristic, successful students are able to be stylistically
flexible, at least to some degree, and that they are able to adapt their
style to the situation in which they find themselves (Oxford, 2011; Reid,
1987). Although, as Kawai (2010) points out, teachers tend to have pre-
ferred teaching styles, these may conflict with students’ learning styles.
Teachers should therefore be prepared to expand their styles as well as
helping learners to leave their comfort zones and experiment with dif-
ferent styles, thereby enhancing their chances of achieving success in
language learning.
164 Learning Styles
Perhaps the main conclusion which should be inferred from the

exploratory study reported on in this chapter is that students should
be allowed some degree of individual freedom as there is clearly no
one-size-fits-all learning style that can lead to success for specific indi-
viduals in particular contexts. As such, teachers should try to accom-
modate stylistic variety when planning and conducting their lessons
to allow learners to employ a learning style that suits their preferences
and is personally enjoyable for the individual. Such an environment

will empower students “to equitably develop their individual learning
styles” (Kinsella, 1995, p. 193). As Nel (2008) reminds us, style is one of
the factors that ought to be considered when it comes to dealing with
our students, and, as teachers, we cannot ignore the stylistic preferences
of our learners. Students are unique individuals, and it is surely part of
our professional responsibility to conduct our classes in such a way that
each individual is able to reach the highest level of learning of which he
or she may be capable.
Although the study reported here generally accords with conclusions
reached elsewhere in the literature, it was relatively small-scale and
limited in context. In order to further explore in what ways language
learning styles might have a relationship to successful learning, it would
be interesting to use the ILLS, perhaps adapted as a result of experi-
ence with this study or in order to better suit the target participants
and/or situation, to investigate stylistic preferences with other groups
of learners across a wider range of contexts. Since it was impossible to
include all of the style dimensions listed in the literature review with-
out creating an impossibly long instrument, others might like to include
some of the dimensions left out of this study or which were under-
represented if they are deemed appropriate for other particular students
or contexts.
In order to extend the insights gained from both quantitative and
qualitative data, interviews with a purposive sample of participants
might also be included to add further triangulation and reveal more
nuanced differences across the learners. An especially interesting direc-
tion for future research might be to adopt a longitudinal rather than
a cross-sectional approach to investigate the degree to which styles
can change over time and contexts and the effect that this might
have on learning success or otherwise. Other areas that remain under-
explored include the relationship between learning styles and the use
of technologies, and also the relationships among learning style and
combinations of other key learner variables such as age, gender, culture,
beliefs, different learning situations, and so on.
Carol Griffiths 165
Appendix 11A Inventory of language learning styles (ILLS)
Please rate each of the following learning style preferences according to

the scale:
5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = neutral; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly
disagree.

I like to learn language Rating Comment
1 by reading (literary style) (Fleming & Mills, 1992)

2 by writing things down (graphic style) (Fleming & Mills, 1992)
3 by speaking in the target (oral style) (Reid, 1987; Fleming &
language Mills, 1992)
4 by hearing the target (aural style) (Reid, 1987;
language spoken Fleming & Mills, 1992)
5 by seeing, e.g., diagrams, (visual style) (Reid, 1987; Fleming &
pictures, etc. Mills, 1992)
6 by moving around (kinaesthetic style) (Reid, 1987;
Fleming & Mills, 1992)
7 by manipulating, e.g., (tactile style) (Reid, 1987; Fleming &
models, cards, etc. Mills, 1992)
8 by learning the rules (rule-based style) (Willing, 1987)
9 by being corrected (authority-based style) (Willing, 1987)
10 with others (co-operative/social/interactive style)
(Reid, 1987; Willing, 1987)
11 in an environment that (environmental preferences) (Dunn
I find pleasant et al., 1975)
12 by memorizing (memory-dependent style) (Cohen
et al., 2002)
13 by having what I need (ambiguity toleration) (Ely, 1995)
to learn clear and
unambiguous
14 by concentrating on (field in/dependent/global/holistic)
details (Cohen et al., 2002)
15 by thinking before (reflective style) (Cohen et al., 2002;
speaking or writing Ehrman & Leaver, 2003)
16 in order (sequential) (Ehrman & Leaver, 2003)
17 by playing games (people oriented) (Willing, 1987)
18 Do you have any other
preferences regarding
how you learn language?
NB: For anyone planning to use this survey in their own work, the notes included in the
comments column are for researcher reference only and should be removed before being
administered to students.
166 Learning Styles

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chapter 5 in this book contains a wealth of information about learning
styles and about the basic conceptual issues involved. Dörnyei outlines
the work of many of those who have researched and written in the area and
discusses the practical implications of the concept of learning style preferences.

Nel, C. (2008). Learning style and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.),
Lessons from good language learners (pp. 49–60). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
In this chapter, Nel deals with conceptual issues, outlines existing research
and describes existing measurement instruments. She then addresses the
question of whether there is a good language learner style before considering
pedagogical implications and suggesting questions for further research.
Reid, J. (Ed.) (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
This is a classic in the field which contains 15 chapters by many of the well-
known names in the area. The appendices contain a wealth of survey material
which might be useful for those wanting to conduct their own research.
References
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Using learning style
to predict foreign language achievement at the college level. System, 28,
115–133.
Bonham, L. (1988). Learning style instruments: Let the buyer beware. Lifelong
Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 11(6), 12–16.
Chapelle, C. (1988). Field independence: A source of language variance? Language
Testing, 5, 62–82.
Cohen, A., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation,
styles and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics
(pp. 170–190). London: Edward Arnold.
Cohen, A., Oxford, R., & Chi, J. (2002). Learning Styles Survey. Retrieved
12 September 2011 from Center for Advanced Research on Language Acqui-
sition website: www. carla.umn.edu
Curry, L. (1983). Learning style in continuing medical education. Ottawa: Canadian
Medical Association.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1975). The learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS:
Price Systems.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1991). Productivity environmental preference survey.
Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Carol Griffiths 167
Ehrman, M. (2008). Personality and good language learners. In C. Griffiths

(Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 61–72). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ehrman, M., & Leaver, B. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language
learning. System, 31, 393–415.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and
psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language
Journal, 73(1), 1–13.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in

an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning
success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67–89.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ely, C. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. Reid (Ed.),
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87–95). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Fleming, N., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for
reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137–149.
Green, J., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency
and sex. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297.
Gregorc, A. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educa-
tional Leadership, 36, 236–238.
Griffiths, C. (2008a). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths
University Press.
Griffiths, C. (2008b). Age and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons
from good language learners (pp. 35–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter
Honey Publications.
Kawai, Y. (2010). Learner variability-learning styles, In H. Kojima, N. Ozeki, &
T. Hiromori (Eds.), Seichou suru eigo gakushusha: gakushushayouin to jiritsu
gakushu (Learner development in English language learning: Learner fac-
tors and autonomous learning, A series of studies on English education)
(pp. 19–43). Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners. In J. Reid
(Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 170–195). Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Kolb, D. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory: Self-scoring test and interpretation.
Boston, MA: McBer & Company.
Lawrence, G. (1997). Looking at type and learning styles. Gainsville, FL: Centre for
Applications of Psychological Type.
Lee, C., Cheng, Y., Rai, S., & Depickere, A. (2005). What affect student cogni-
tive style in the development of hypermedia learning system? Computers and
Education, 45, 1–19.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising
the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320–337.
Myers, I. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
168 Learning Styles
Nel, C. (2008). Learning style and good language learners. In C. Griffiths

University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1993). Style Analysis Survey (SAS). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama.

Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow:
Pearson Longman.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly,
21(1), 87–111.
Reid, J. (Ed.) (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Riding, R. (2000). Cognitive style: A strategic approach for advancement. In
R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Interpersonal perspectives on individual differences
(Vol. 1: Cognitive styles, pp. 365–377). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London:
David Fulton.
Willing, K. (1987). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Sydney: National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Witkin, H. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley.
Witkin, H. (1971). Embedded figures test. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
Zhou, M. (2011). Learning styles and teaching styles. International Education
Studies, 4(1), 73–77.
12
Metacognition: Awareness
of Language Learning
Neil J Anderson

Introduction
The focus of this chapter is to examine the psychological principles of

metacognition and identify how second language (L2) educators can
increase learners’ awareness of their metacognition. The chapter will
present research findings to support the integration of metacognitive
strategy awareness training within an L2 curriculum. Training learners
to be more cognizant and reflective of how they engage in language
learning facilitates the development of learner autonomy.
Metacognition: definitions, principles, key studies,

and rationale
In the 35 years since Flavell first introduced the concept of

metacognition (1976), there has been an explosion of research with
numerous journal articles, book chapters, and books dedicated to
exploring how metacognition impacts on teaching and learning
(Anderson, 2002a, 2002b, 2007, 2008; Baker & Brown, 1984; Coutinho,
Wiemer-Hastings, Skowronski, & Britt, 2005; Efklides, 2006, 2008;
Efklides & Misailidi, 2010; Larkin, 2009; Prins, Veenman, & Elshout,
2006; Sánchez-Alonso & Vovides, 2007; Terrace & Son, 2009; Yzerbyt,
Lories, & Dardenne, 1998). In 2006 a journal dedicated to exploring
the issues of metacognition emerged, Metacognition and Learning. It is
clear that metacognition is a topic of great interest across a variety of
disciplines and for an increasing number of scholars within L2 teaching.
Flavell (1976, 1979, 1987) engaged in the early aspects of research-
ing and identifying components of metacognition and identifying how
metacognition enhances learning. According to Flavell:
169
170 Metacognition
metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cog-

nitive processes and products or anything related to them, e.g., the
learning-relevant properties of information or data. For example, I am
engaging in metacognition (metamemory, metalearning, metatten-
tion, metalanguage, or whatever) if I notice that I am having more
trouble learning A than B; if it strikes me that I should double check
C before accepting it as fact.
(1976, p. 232)

He proposed a model of cognitive monitoring (Flavell, 1979) that con-
sists of four key elements: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive
experiences, goals (or tasks), and actions (or strategies).
Metacognitive knowledge refers to our acquired knowledge about our
cognitive processes, knowledge that can be used to control thinking
processes. Flavell further divides metacognitive knowledge into three
categories: knowledge of person variables, task variables, and strategy
variables. Knowledge about each of these three categories is central to
being aware of one’s cognitive processes. Person variables include your
awareness of yourself as a learner and of your awareness of others as
learners. The task variables category includes your awareness of the dif-
ficulty or ease of tasks. Knowledge of one’s strategies plays a significant
role in the ability to metacognize. Without the knowledge of the range
of strategies available for addressing a learning challenge, learners do
not have the strategic behaviours available to them to accomplish their
learning goals and tasks.
Metacognitive experiences include those cognitive or affective expe-
riences that we associate with learning. Goals are highlighted as the
primary objective of a cognitive activity and actions are the spe-
cific steps we take to achieve those goals. When individuals have a
greater awareness of these variables, they are in greater control of
how they learn and how they react to successes and setbacks in
learning.
Anderson (2002a, 2008) indicates that metacognition is the ability to
make one’s thinking visible. It is the ability to reflect on what one knows
and does and what one does not know and does not do. Metacognition
results in critical but healthy reflection and evaluation of one’s think-
ing which may result in making specific changes in how one learns.
Metacognition is not simply thinking back on an event, describing what
happened and how one felt about it. It requires a cognitive awareness
and engagement with the awareness of one’s thinking. He subdivides
metacognition into five primary components:
Neil J Anderson 171
(1) preparing and planning for effective learning,

(2) deciding when to use particular strategies,
(3) knowing how to monitor strategy use,
(4) learning how to combine various strategies,
(5) evaluating the effectiveness of strategy use.
Metacognition is not any one of the five elements in isolation. It is

the blending of all five into a kaleidoscopic view (Anderson, 2002b)

that may be the most accurate representation of metacognition. Each
of these five aspects interacts with the others. Metacognition is not a
linear process moving from preparing and planning to evaluating. More
than one metacognitive process may be happening at a time during a
learning task. The shifting patterns help us understand the changeable
nature of teaching and learning. Each time we look through the kaleido-
scope we see different patterns. We can therefore see why metacognitive
knowledge is so important to teaching and learning. No two class ses-
sions are the same. The view of metacognition through the kaleidoscope
may give us the most realistic view of what happens in teaching and
learning.
Models of language learning strategies typically include metacognitive
strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990, 2011). Grabe
(2009) suggests that there are not separate categories of cogni-
tive and metacognitive strategies, but “rather, there are levels of
metacognitive awareness that can consciously direct strategy use to sup-
port [learner] goals” (p. 224). Chamot and her colleagues (Chamot,
Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999) outline a metacognitive model
of strategic learning. In this volume, Cohen’s Chapter 10 on strate-
gies offers an excellent review of the literature and a current view
of the interactions among strategies, learning styles, and motivation
on tasks.
Healthy self-assessment is a central principle of a learner who is
metacognitively aware and can be seen as being at the centre of a
continuum with superficial self-assessment at one end and hypercrit-
ical self-assessment at the other. Students who are superficial in their
self-assessment have a firm belief that their performance in class is
nearly perfect and they do not feel challenged. These learners often
overestimate their ability to perform well in an L2.
At the other end of the self-assessment continuum, we have learners
who are hypercritical of their performance. They tell you all the reasons
why they do not believe that they are performing well in the language.
These learners often underestimate their performance. We want to help
172 Metacognition
both of these types of learners to engage in healthy, but critical self-

assessment. In order for this to happen, they must be metacognitively
aware of their learning processes.
Understanding and controlling cognitive processes may be one of the
most essential skills that classroom teachers can develop in themselves
and their students. Rather than focusing students’ attention only on
issues related to learning content, effective teachers structure a learning
atmosphere where thinking about what happens in the learning process

leads to stronger learning skills. Developing metacognitive awareness
also leads to the development of stronger cognitive skills as well.
Dörnyei (2001) has identified four components of motivational teach-
ing practice in the L2 classroom: creating the basic motivational
conditions; generating initial motivation; maintaining and protecting
motivation; finally, encouraging positive, retrospective self-evaluation
(p. 29). The fourth component of his framework is especially impor-
tant to our discussion on metacognition. Dörnyei encourages teachers
to be consciously aware of how they serve as motivators of student learn-
ing. Specifically engaging learners in effective metacognitive reflection
of the learning process and encouraging them to become competent
self-assessors is a vital teacher role as a motivator.
Wenden (1999, 2001) makes a connection between metacognitive
knowledge and learner beliefs. Our beliefs about learning certainly
influence our thinking about how we can learn better. Others have
conducted research on learner beliefs and the findings support the con-
nections between one’s beliefs about self and L2 learning (Cotterall,
1999; Horwitz, 1999; Mori, 1999; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Yang, 1999).
Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009) provide an additional line of investigation
in their volume on motivation, language identity, and the L2 self. The
beliefs that a learner carries within him/herself are part of the knowledge
base that influences learning. (See Mercer’s Chapter 2 for a discussion of
self-related beliefs.)
It is important to highlight the difference between cognition and
metacognition. Cognition is our thinking, while metacognition is our
thinking about the thinking. Thinking that a learning task is difficult
is an act of cognition. Doing something about our thinking of that
difficult learning task is an act of metacognition. This suggests that cog-
nition must precede metacognition. The two acts are however closely
tied together. Thus, it is challenging at times to actually separate them.
If we use our thinking in strategic ways to accomplish learning goals, we
are being metacognitively aware of our goals and assessing achievement
of those goals.
Neil J Anderson 173
The examination of a few key research studies on metacognition can

help us see the differences between cognition and metacognition. One
such study is from Kruger and Dunning (1999). In their study, these
researchers highlight the centrality of metacognitive skills and provide
a rationale for why we need to include a strong metacognitive aware-
ness training component in educational contexts. Kruger and Dunning’s
(1999) suggest that,

when people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve
success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they
reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
(p. 1121)
They tested their hypothesis in four separate studies. The first study
addressed the domain of humour. Subjects had to rate the humour in
a series of jokes. Their ratings were compared with the ratings of profes-
sional comedians. The second study compared the subjects’ perceived
and actual abilities to engage in logical reasoning. Subjects completed
a 20-item logical reasoning test and then were asked to rate themselves
on their perceived test performance and their perceived abilities in logi-
cal reasoning. The third study was an English grammar knowledge test.
Subjects completed a 20-item English grammar test followed by a self-
assessment of their ability to recognize grammar errors by indicating
how they thought they would compare in their test performance in
comparison with their peers. A second phase was added to the third
study. Researchers invited subjects in the bottom quartile and in the top
quartile to participate in a follow-up study. Subjects were asked to eval-
uate the tests of five of their peers and asked to evaluate how competent
they felt their peers were in completing the grammar test items. The
final study was a replication of the second study on logical reasoning.
This study provided a logical reasoning training component. Following
the completion of the training packet and the test, subjects participated
in a session in which they verbalized for the researchers which items on
the logical reasoning test they thought they had answered correctly and
which ones they thought they had not answered correctly.
The results from all four of these studies (Kruger & Dunning, 1999)
support the hypothesis that subjects overestimate their abilities, but
especially those who perform the poorest on the tests were unaware
of their lack of abilities in logical reasoning. When subjects are pro-
vided with some training on the skills being tested, those who perform
well tend to underestimate their performance, while those who perform
174 Metacognition
poorly continue to overestimate their performance and perpetuate their

belief that they are good at the domain being tested. Based on the
results of these four studies, part of the key to improving learning
is the combination of feedback to the learner and training on the
skills being evaluated. These data provide empirical support for the
self-assessment continuum described earlier. There are learners who
overestimate (superficial self-assessors) and those who underestimate
(hypercritical self-assessors) their actual language abilities.

Kruger and Dunning continued this line of research with other
colleagues and continue to find similar results (Dunning, Johnson,
Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003; Ehrlinger & Dunning, 2003). As will be illus-
trated below, a similar research format has been conducted with L2
learners and reported in this chapter.
Metacognition and the language skills

A number of research studies have been conducted on the impact of
metacognitive knowledge training on L2 learners. In this section we will
review one key study for each of the four language skills of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing.
Listening
Vandergrift and Goh (2011) provide a theoretical foundation for a
metacognitive approach to L2 listening instruction. They want learners
to be more aware of the variety of listening strategies available to them
and to use those strategies in real-time listening. They suggest that learn-
ers be more metacognitively aware during planning, monitoring, and
evaluating of the listening task. The framework of metacognition they
present focuses on the learners’ experience, knowledge, and strategies
for managing learning.
Speaking
Zhang and Goh (2006) examined student awareness of strategies while
involved in both listening and speaking contexts. Their study included
278 Singaporean students and investigated the knowledge and use of
40 listening and speaking strategies. The researchers divided appropri-
ate strategies into four categories: use-focused strategies, form-focused
learning strategies, comprehension strategies, and communication
strategies. The results showed that the learners used more use-focused
strategies even though they understood that strategies in all four cate-
gories were useful. Half of the learners identified 32 of the 40 strategies as
useful, but they reported using frequently only 13 of the strategies. The
Neil J Anderson 175
researchers suggest that this finding provides evidence that the learners
are not yet confident strategy users. This suggests that metacognitive
awareness training would be an appropriate addition to a language
learning curriculum.
Reading
Zhang (2010) provides a current perspective on the value of
metacognitive awareness and L2 reading. He reports a study conducted

with 20 learners in China who were asked to read two expository
texts of 500 words each followed by a 20-minute interview designed
to gather insights into the readers’ motivation, self-efficacy, emotions,
and attitudes while reading.
The results focus on three categories: knowledge about self, knowl-
edge about cognitive tasks, and knowledge about strategies for effective
reading. Successful readers are more aware of themselves as readers.
Their motivation, confidence, self-efficacy, and interest in English were
significantly different from that of the less successful readers. Success-
ful readers are aware of how to make meaning from what was read,
while the less successful readers focused more on issues of grammar and
vocabulary while reading.
Based on these findings, Zhang (2010) makes three recommendations
for L2 teachers. First, raise students’ awareness of metacognitive knowl-
edge. Second, teachers need to reinforce the students’ knowledge about
the learning tasks they are engaged in. Finally, students need knowledge
about effective strategies they can employ while reading.
Writing
Anderson (2007) illustrates ways of raising learners’ metacognitive
awareness to improve L2 writing. He encourages teachers to engage in
the frequently used research tool of think-aloud protocols in the writ-
ing classroom to get learners to make their thinking visible through
the process of writing. An 11-step pedagogical outline is suggested. The
teacher’s modelling of the cognitive and metacognitive processes used
while writing is the highlight of the pedagogical procedure. Scaffold-
ing the writing and the thinking processes that good writers use is an
appropriate way for teachers to assist struggling L2 writers.
The current research study reported here was sparked by the Kruger and
Dunning research (1999). Their research suggests that it is difficult for
176 Metacognition
learners to self-assess in areas where they are weak because they lack the
ability to see what they have been asked to self-assess.
Two research questions were addressed. First, do L2 learners who score
in the upper and lower quartiles on an integrated language skills test
differ significantly from each other on their self-assessments of their
performance? Next, do L2 learners who score in the upper and lower
quartiles on an oral skills test differ significantly from each other on
their self-assessments of their performance? A hypothesis is tested to

determine whether learners in the upper quartile underestimate their
performance while learners in the lower quartile overestimate their
performance.
Data were collected from 992 English as a foreign language (EFL)
learners in Costa Rica from 13 levels of language proficiency. The 992
were then divided into quartiles for the analyses. The quartile cut scores
were established to include all learners of the same score. Therefore, we
do not have a perfect division into quarters. Four scores were collected
from learners in these two groups: the course final exam score on an
integrated skills test, a self-assessment of the course final exam score on
that test, the course final exam scores on an oral skills test, and, finally,
a self-assessment of the course final exam score on that test. After estab-
lishing the cut scores for each level, we evaluated the estimated scores
and the actual scores for 545 learners (290 learners in the upper quartile
and 255 in the lower quartile) on the integrated skills test and from 488
learners (252 learners in the upper quartile and 236 in the lower quar-
tile) on the oral skills tests. (Note: 57 of the learners failed to provide
their surveys of their estimated scores on the oral skills test and thus
were dropped from the analysis.)
Learners took their final exams on the integrated skills test in their
individual classrooms and were monitored by their teachers. Upon com-
pleting the test, each learner was given a self-assessment questionnaire.
Using the test paper, learners were asked to go back over each of the
questions on the exam and provide a self-assessment of their perfor-
mance. They were asked to identify for each item on the test whether
they thought they had got the item correct, incorrect, or they were
not sure.
Following the self-assessment on the integrated skills test, students
participated in a one-on-one oral interview. Following the administra-
tion of the oral skills test, learners were provided with a self-assessment
questionnaire which asked for their judgement of their performance on
the test. Table 12.1 contains the oral skills self-assessment form.
Neil J Anderson 177
Table 12.1 Self-assessment instructions for the oral interview
Oral interview Self-assessment
Task #1 Task #2
1. Fluency 1234 1234

2. Accuracy/Grammar 1234 1234
3. Accuracy/Pronunciation 1234 1234
4. Content and Vocabulary 1234 1234

Notes: Provide a self-assessment of your performance on the final oral
interview for each of the two tasks. How well do you think you did on
each of the following parts: fluency, grammar, pronunciation, and content
and vocabulary?
The data were analysed through ANOVA. The results are reported in
Table 12.2 for the integrated skills test and in Table 12.3 for the oral
skills test.
Therefore, in response to the first research question (do L2 learners
who score in the upper and lower quartiles on an oral skills test differ
significantly from each other on their self-assessments of their perfor-
mance?), we see that there is a statistically significant difference between
the perceived and actual scores of learners on this integrated skills test.
Learners who score in the upper quartile of an integrated skills test
underestimated their performance on the test while those in the lower
quartile overestimated their performance.
As noted by the p column in Table 12.2, for all 13 levels there is a
significant difference between the self-assessment scores and the actual
scores for learners in the upper and the lower quartiles. For the upper
quartile, we note that in every case these learners underestimated their
performance on the integrated skills test. Learners in the lower quartile
overestimated their performance on the integrated skills test.
As noted by the p column in Table 12.3, we have mixed results across
the 13 levels on the oral skills test. For 7 of the 13 levels (54 per cent),
there is a statistically significant difference between the ways that learn-
ers in the upper quartile and those in the lower quartile self-assess
their performance on the oral skills test. For the remaining six levels
(46 per cent), there is no statistically significant difference between the
self-assessments and the actual performance on the oral skills test.
Therefore, in response to the second research question (do L2 learn-
ers who score in the upper and lower quartiles on an oral skills test
differ significantly from each other on their self-assessments of their
178
Table 12.2 Difference in integrated skills test: Actual scores versus estimated scores
Level k Upper Lower Difference
Estimated score Actual score Estimated score Actual score Upper Lower df F p
1 22 18.64 20.17 16.46 15.3 −1.53 1.16 81 27.43 < 0.001

2 30 24.68 28.76 21.83 22.04 −4.08 −0.22 44 10.36 < 0.001
3 28 25 27.06 21.88 20.74 −2.06 1.14 34 9.18 < 0.001
4 27 22.47 25.17 22.26 19.65 −2.70 2.61 69 38.27 < 0.001
5 70 61 62.2 55.58 44.92 −1.2 10.66 25 13.52 < 0.001
6 28 24.95 27.43 21.56 21.38 −2.47 0.19 79 10.92 < 0.001
7 28 23.88 26.95 20.75 18.59 −3.08 2.17 15 10.78 < 0.001
8 30 26.24 28.49 23.32 22.27 −2.26 1.04 43 17.32 < 0.001
9 27 22.14 26.04 21.63 20.96 −3.90 0.67 14 8.51 < 0.01
10 28 23.53 26.53 21.26 18.24 −2.49 3.02 37 31.22 < 0.001
11 30 26 28.43 20.6 17.32 −2.43 3.28 32 19.77 < 0.001
12 25 20.94 24.77 19.58 18.90 −3.83 0.69 27 16.57 < 0.001
13 30 26.67 29.47 23.87 23.18 −2.80 0.69 32 10.40 < 0.001
Table 12.3 Difference in oral skills test: Actual scores versus estimated scores
Level Upper Lower Difference
Estimated score Actual score Estimated score Actual score Upper Lower df F p
1 23.0 28.17 21.25 25.2 −5.17 −3.94 58 8.28 < 0.01

2 24.18 29.68 21.83 25.26 −5.5 −3.43 44 16.55 < 0.001
3 24.26 29.05 20.5 24.81 −4.78 −4.31 27 5.21 < 0.05
4 24.81 29.14 22.15 27.62 −4.33 −5.47 61 1.96 ns
5 21.14 27.79 20.67 24.67 −6.64 −4.0 22 6.63 < 0.01
6 24.27 28.83 22.59 26.64 −4.56 −4.05 68 8.59 < 0.01
7 26.25 29.25 22.63 28.62 −3.0 −6.0 16 1.41 ns
8 23.28 28.56 21.95 24.16 −5.28 −2.21 47 36.12 < 0.001
9 22.14 29.43 23.38 27.38 −7.28 −4.0 9 2.58 ns
10 24.68 27.95 21.84 25.63 −3.26 −3.78 35 3.10 ns
11 25.63 29.13 21.8 26.2 −3.5 −4.4 25 .73 ns
12 25.45 28.19 24.33 27.08 −2.75 −2.75 26 .05 ns
13 25.33 29.83 23.6 26.47 −4.49 −2.86 37 4.69 < 0.05
179
180 Metacognition
performance?), we respond with a cautionary ‘no’. As can be seen in

the difference column for the data reported in Table 12.3, the data from
all 13 levels show that learners in both the upper quartile and in the
lower quartile underestimated their performance. We see here a different
pattern emerging related to self-assessment.
This research points out that learners at varying levels of language
proficiency find it difficult to correctly estimate their language abilities
on both an integrated skills test as well as an oral skills test. Learners

who score in the lower quartile of an integrated skills test have a ten-
dency to overestimate their actual abilities and those learners who score
in the upper quartile of the exam have a tendency to underestimate
their actual abilities. These data provide empirical support for the self-
assessment continuum. There are learners who overestimate (superficial
self-assessors) and those who underestimate (hypercritical self-assessors)
their actual language abilities.
Perhaps the reason why learners did not maintain this pattern of over-
and under-estimating their performance on the oral skills test is because
there were finer-tuned criteria for making the self-assessment. On the
self-assessment task for performance on the oral skills test, learners had
to do more than simply indicate whether they thought they had scored
correctly on a discrete test item. They had to think about their range
of performance on four separate scales: fluency, grammar, pronuncia-
tion, and content and vocabulary. Perhaps because the nature of the
self-assessment task had changed, all the learners were underestimating
their performance.
These data point to the importance for language programmes to
embed in the curriculum a metacognitive awareness training compo-
nent to help learners narrow the gap between their perceived and
actual abilities in language learning. Assisting learners in becoming
more metacognitively aware should provide benefits to both the learner
and the learning process for everyone involved.

for pedagogy
The future for research into metacognition and L2 learning is rich. Two
areas of specific research will enhance our understanding and continue
to move us forward in our efforts to improve L2 teaching and learning.
The first, as others have pointed out (Dörnyei, 2005), is strengthening
the connections between metacognitive knowledge and learner beliefs.
Although Wenden (1999) introduced the idea over a decade ago, no
Neil J Anderson 181
follow-up has occurred to explicitly make the connections between

these two important ideas.
Second, the results of research studies on metacognition indicate that
less proficient learners are generally not metacognitively aware. Studies
should be conducted to determine if consistent and effective integration
of a metacognitive awareness training component into regular class-
room instruction can increase the less proficient learner’s awareness of
their learning process. These should include delayed studies to see if

immediate benefits of such training are retained over time.
Now, let us consider specifically what the classroom teacher can do to
develop stronger metacognitive awareness in L2 learners.
First, teachers can engage learners in a structured self-assessment task
following the administration of classroom tests and tasks. When a test
(diagnostic, progress, or achievement) or a classroom quiz is admin-
istered, as well as prior to the submission of a written essay, ask the
students to review their performance on each of the test items or writing
assignment.
As an example, assume that a midterm essay has just been written
on which the learners will be assessed on their writing skills. Learners
should be given the scoring rubric when they are given the writing
assignment. Teachers should verify that the writers understand each
of the criteria against which they will be evaluated. Prior to submis-
sion of the essay, give the learners a self-assessment like the one in
Appendix 12A, based on a scoring rubric from Reid (1993, p. 237).
Through this type of activity, teachers can begin to make students
more aware of the connections between the scoring criteria for the essay
and their actual writing ability. This type of self-assessment activity also
allows teachers to help learners become more aware of their strengths
and weaknesses in self-assessment.
One additional pedagogical activity that teachers can use to help
students become more metacognitively aware of their learning is a
metacognitive journal. The use of this type of journal is one useful
way to engage learners in reflecting on their thinking. The key to
making the journal an effective metacognitive tool is in the types of
prompts that you ask the students to respond to. Appendix 12B con-
tains examples of a few writing prompts for the language skills of
listening, speaking, and reading that teachers could consider using to
engage learners in metacognitive reflection following a class language
task. The key to successful implementation of classroom instruction for
metacognitive awareness is explicitly talking about the cognitive pro-
cesses that learners are engaged in while completing learning tasks.
182 Metacognition
Teachers must be consistent in their reminders of the importance of

being metacognitively aware during learning.
Conclusion
If we want metacognitively aware learners, we must have metacogni-

tively aware teachers. When learners engage in reflecting upon their

learning, they become better prepared to make conscious decisions
about what they can do to improve themselves as language users. Strong
metacognitive skills empower learners. The empowerment results not
only in improved learning, but also will transfer to other aspects of the
student’s life.
Appendix 12A Self-assessment of writing assignment
Name:
Part A
Review your essay using the scoring criteria below and provide a self-
assessment of your performance. How well do you think you did for
each of the following?
Introduction
Informative title and lead-in 1 2 3 4 5
Clear thesis statement 1 2 3 4 5
TOTAL __________ (out of 10)
Support
Specific examples and details 4 8 12 16 20
Connections between ideas 2 4 6 8 10
TOTAL __________ (out of 30)
Organization
Transitions 2 4 6 8 10
Paragraph unity and 2 4 6 8 10
coherence
TOTAL __________ (out of 20)
Neil J Anderson 183
Style
Sentence structure 1 2 3 4 5
Vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5
Grammar 1 2 3 4 5
Mechanics and spelling 1 2 3 4 5
TOTAL __________ (out of 20)

Rhetorical Stance
Purpose clear throughout 2 4 6 8 10
Audience expectations met 2 4 6 8 10
TOTAL __________ (out of 20)
After the essays have been scored by the teacher, return them to the stu-
dents along with the self-assessment sheet. Then ask them to complete
Part B of the self-assessment form.
Part B (to be completed after receiving the essay has been scored by
the teacher)
My perceived score was _____ / 100 points

My actual score was __________ / 100 points.
I _____ my score on this essay.
A. overestimated (I estimated my score would be more than ____
points. )
B. correctly estimated (I estimated my score would be between ____
points. )
C. underestimated (I estimated my score would be lower than ____
points. )
In preparation for writing the next essay, I will do the following things
to improve my score:
Appendix 12B Metacognitive journal prompts
Listening
Based on the listening passage we just completed, respond to the
following reflective questions:
184 Metacognition
1. What strategies did you use while listening?

2. Were those strategies effective in helping you to understand the
passage?
3. What could you do differently on the next passage to improve your
listening?
Speaking

You will participate in a speaking assignment during class today related
to identifying advantages and disadvantages of using public transporta-
tion. Take a few minutes to plan what you are going to say and what
strategies you will use to keep the conversation moving. As you engage
in the conversation, monitor how the reality of the conversation and
your plan are similar and different. After the conversation evaluate how
successful you were of expressing your ideas and to accomplishing the
task of keeping the conversation moving.
Reading
For the reading passage and comprehension questions we completed
during class today,
1. How difficult was the reading for you? 1 2 3 4
Please explain why you gave the passage this difficulty rating.
2. How difficult were the comprehension questions? 1 2 3 4
Please explain why you gave the comprehension questions this difficulty
rating.
3. In what ways have you improved as a reader over the past few
weeks?

Efklides, A., & Misailidi, P. (2010). Trends and prospects in metacognition research.
New York: Springer.
This book provides a current perspective on the basic research in metacognition
and the developmental and educational implications of metacognition.
Because it is not related to the teaching and learning of languages, it provides
language educators a perspective of metacognition beyond our specific context
of language learning and teaching.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (Eds.). (2008). Reading strategies of first- and second-
language learners: See how they read. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon
Publishers.
Neil J Anderson 185
This book provides examples of how metacognition plays a key role in first
and second language reading. As part of the repertoire of reading strategies,
metacognition is central to success in reading inside and outside of the
classroom.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2011). Teaching and learning second language
listening: Metacognition in action. Clifton, NJ: Routledge.
This book provides the theoretical foundation that L2 teachers need to fully
implement a metacognitive approach to L2 listening in the classroom. It will

also propel our profession forward in significant ways to help learners become
more efficient listeners.
References
Anderson, N. J. (2002a). The role of metacognition in second/foreign language
teaching and learning. ERIC Digest. Retrieved 9 November 2011 from http://
www. cal.org/resources/digest/0110anderson. html
Anderson, N. J. (2002b). Using telescopes, microscopes, and kaleidoscopes to put
metacognition into perspective. TESOL Matters, 12(4). Retrieved 9 November
2011 from http://tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=193&DID=953
Anderson, N. J. (2007). Metacognition in writing: Facilitating writer awareness.
In A. Stubbs (Ed.), Rhetoric, uncertainty, and the university as text: How students
construct the academic experience (pp. 19–43). Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada:
Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.
Anderson, N. J. (2008). Metacognition and the good language learner. In
C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 99–109). Cambridge:
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading.
In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (pp. 353–395). New York: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning
strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe
about them? System, 27, 493–513.
Coutinho, S., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Skowronski, J. J., & Britt, M. A. (2005).
Metacognition, need for cognition and use of explanations during ongoing
learning and problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 321–337.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to
recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
12, 83–87.
Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive expe-
riences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1,
3–14.
186 Metacognition
Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of function-

ing in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13,
277–287.
Efklides, A., & Misailidi, P. (2010). Trends and prospects in metacognition research.
New York: Springer.
Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and
potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 5–17.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick

(Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of
metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation
and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language
learners’ beliefs and language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27,
557–576.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in
recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.
Larkin, S. (2009). Socially mediated metacognition and learning to write. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 4, 149–159.
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What
do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49,
377–415.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House Publisher.
Pearson.
Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellec-
tual ability and metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of
problematicity theory. Learning and Instruction, 16, 374–387.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.
Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about
language learning. System, 27, 473–492.
Sánchez-Alonso, S., & Vovides, Y. (2007). Integration of metacognitive skills in
the design of learning objects. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2585–2595.
Terrace, H. S., & Son, L. K. (2009). Comparative metacognition. Current Opinion
in Neurobiology, 19, 67–74.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2011). Teaching and learning second language
listening: Metacognition in action. Clifton, NJ: Routledge.
Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs
in language learning. System, 27, 435–441.
Neil J Anderson 187
Wenden, A. L. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable.

In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in
research (pp. 44–64). Harlow: Longman.
Yang, N. -D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning
strategy use. System, 27, 515–535.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Lories, G., & Dardenne, B. (1998). Metacognition: Cognitive and social
dimensions. London: Sage Publications.
Zhang, D., & Goh, C. C. M. (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strat-
egy use: Singaporean students’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies.

Language Awareness, 15, 199–219.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese uni-
versity students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.
13
Goal Orientations: Three
Perspectives on Motivation
Goal Orientations

Lindy Woodrow
Introduction
Motivation is the force that propels an individual’s engagement with a

given course of action. The notion of goal orientations plays a central
role in models of language learning that include motivation. Typically,
in language learning theorizing, a goal orientation is viewed as a reason,
or a cluster of reasons for learning the language.
This chapter will start by defining goal orientations from language
learning and educational psychological perspectives. It will discuss goal
orientations in learning a foreign language and then present three
of the most important conceptualizations of goal orientations in cur-
rent motivation research. This is followed by the presentation of a
research project that uses quantitative research methodology typical
of goal orientation research. Finally, the need for further research into
goal orientations relevant to language learners and how positive goal
orientations can be promoted at a classroom and teacher level are
considered.
Background literature
Goal orientations have been investigated by motivation researchers

within different theoretical frameworks. In this chapter, three concep-
tualizations of goal orientations are considered: first, from the per-
spective of Robert Gardner and his socio-educational model of second
language acquisition; second, from a self-determination theory perspec-
tive (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Noels, 2001) and third from an educational
psychology achievement goal perspective (Ames & Archer, 1988).
188
Lindy Woodrow 189
Motivational goal orientations may be broadly defined as reasons for

learning a language. The research literature covers a vast number of pos-
sible reasons for learning a language, for instance an individual may
be learning a foreign language to get a better job, to find a spouse or
because of an intense identification with the target language group (Cid,
Granena, & Tragant, 2009). Gardner defines orientations as categories of
reasons: “An orientation is an inclination, the underlying force directing
the choice of the particular reason” (Gardner, 2010, p. 17). To arrive at

these clusters of reasons usually the researcher will gather self-reported
reasons for studying a language and then subject these to a statistical
factor analysis which will suggest clusters of variables that are related to
each other (see, e.g., Cid et al., 2009; Clément & Kruidenier, 1983).
Goal orientations are important in any model of learning because they
may be viewed as the impetus for motivated behaviour. They can be the
source of sustained effort and achievement. In the conceptualization of
motivational orientations, the relationship between the orientation and
the learning outcome is usually highlighted. Thus, in Gardner’s theoriz-
ing, an integrative orientation (identification with the target language
group) is viewed as being one of the characteristics of successful lan-
guage learning; in self-determination theory, an intrinsic motivational
orientation (interest in language learning) is viewed as being most desir-
able, and in goal orientation theory a task or mastery goal orientation
(interest in a learning goal) is viewed as superior. It is important to note
that orientations do not in themselves indicate the level of motiva-
tion, engagement or effort, but represent an aspect of a motivational
profile. So, successful learners are likely to have intrinsic motivation,
but it is possible for a learner to have an intrinsic goal orientation
but not to engage in sustained effort. Current thinking in education
research suggests that learners may hold multiple goals that previously
were considered incompatible, such as task goals and performance goals
(Pintrich, 2000).
Research into second language motivation started in earnest with the
work done by Robert Gardner in 1959 (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972).
Gardner has made a substantial contribution to knowledge in this field
through his model of language learning. This model has been devel-
oped and revised over four decades and is labelled the socio-educational
model of second language acquisition (Gardner, 1985b, 2010). Gardner
is perhaps most well known for his conceptualization of motivation ori-
entations. In his initial study, he hypothesized a dichotomous construct
of goal orientations reflecting instrumental and integrative reasons for
learning a language. Broadly speaking, an instrumental orientation
190 Goal Orientations
reflects pragmatic reasons for learning a language, for example to get

a better job, while an integrative orientation reflects identification, to
some degree, with the target language group or culture. This distinction
proved to be very attractive to researchers and there are a vast num-
ber of research projects that have focused on these. However, many of
these studies, according to Gardner, misconstrue the scope and role of
orientations in language learning (Gardner, 2010).
In Gardner’s research, orientations are measured using the Atti-

tude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985a). This scale
includes 19 subscales measuring variables concerning language learning.
Orientations were measured using 7-point Likert-scale type items. This
is a scale that reflects points varying from positive (e.g., strongly agree)
to negative (e.g., strongly disagree). In the AMTB, four items referred to
integrative orientations and four items referred to instrumental orienta-
tions. The original scale also included a dichotomously scored (yes/no)
item which identified orientations either as instrumental or integrative.
There have been a large number of research projects that have used all
or parts of the AMTB (Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997).
Gardner’s original research focused on learners of French located in
the bilingual setting of Canada. This is a very particular language-
learning situation. The learners were aiming for native speaker com-
petence and had plenty of opportunity for immersion in the target
language. In other language learning settings, native speaker compe-
tence is generally not the goal and there is little chance for immersion
in the language and culture. This is the basis for the main criti-
cisms of Gardner’s theorizing and has lead to much debate since the
1990s (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1990; Oxford & Shearin,
1994).
The most controversial aspect of Gardner’s work in motivation is the
concept of integrativeness. There has been much discussion concerning
the terms integrativeness, integrative motive, and integrative orienta-
tion. Essentially, they all reflect some degree of identification with, and
interest in, the culture of the target language group. The concept does
not appear in any other motivational theorizing, for example, educa-
tion. One of the main areas of contention is that integrativeness (or
integrative motivation or integrative orientation) applies to all language
learners. For example, it is questionable whether learners in foreign lan-
guage settings learning a language as a compulsory school subject can
be motivated by issues relating to the target language culture (Dörnyei,
2003). In Gardner’s latest book, he defends this position by describing
an integratively motivated individual as having “an open and accepting
Lindy Woodrow 191
orientation toward the other language community . . . favourable atti-

tudes toward the language learning situation and a heightened motiva-
tion to learn the language” (Gardner, 2010, p. 202). For further insights
into this discussion, Au presents an early critique of Gardner’s work (Au,
1988), Masgoret and Gardner (2003) present a meta-analysis of stud-
ies conducted by Gardner and his associates that focus on the issues of
motivation and orientations, and Gardner (2010) provides an in-depth
response to criticism of his theorizing.

Subsequent to Gardner’s initial work, studies have identified numer-
ous orientations reported by language learners in different settings. For
example, Clément and Kruidenier (1983) found four common orien-
tations: instrumental, friendship, travel, and knowledge. Yashima and
colleagues put forward the idea of international posture as a possible
orientation. This orientation reflects an interest in international issues
and identification with an international community (Yashima, Zenuk-
Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). Noels and colleagues investigated second
language learning orientations in light of Deci and Ryan’s (1985) con-
ceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic orientations. This is discussed
further below.
Self-determination theory (SDT) is one of the most influential theo-
ries of motivation across a number of disciplines, from management to
sport. This theory was put forward by Deci and Ryan (1985). They define
self-determination as “the process of utilizing one’s will” (Deci, 1980,
p. 26). This framework has been applied to language learning settings by
Noels and colleagues (Noels, Clément, & Pelletier, 2001; Noels, Pelletier,
Clément, & Vallerand, 2000, 2003). In the SDT framework, a distinc-
tion is made between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. An extrinsic
orientation, like Gardner’s instrumental orientation, reflects a utilitar-
ian or pragmatic reason for learning the language, while an intrinsic
orientation refers to pleasure derived from engaging in the activity.
However, it differs from Gardner’s concept in that, according to Noels,
self-determination is represented as a continuum with amotivation at
one end representing non-self-determination, and intrinsic orientation
at the other end representing self-determination. Extrinsic orientations
are multifaceted and are located between the two ends of the continuum
(Noels, 2001, p. 49).
Within the SDT framework, extrinsic motivation refers to external
reasons for learning the language. These are classified as external, intro-
jected, identified, and integrated regulation. External regulation refers
to a reason, such as, learning a language to get a job. An introjected reg-
ulation may be informed by perceived rewards or punishments, such as,
learning the language to gain respect from others. An identified regu-

lation refers to the perceived value and usefulness of the activity, such
as, learning the language because it will be generally useful for one’s
future. An integrated regulation refers to motivational orientation that
is assimilated with given goals, for example, wanting to be perceived
as a cultured person (Noels, et al., 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In SDT,
an intrinsic orientation is classified as being driven by: a desire for
knowledge (intrinsic–knowledge), a feeling of achievement (intrinsic–

accomplishment) or by enjoyment experienced (intrinsic–stimulation)
(Noels, 2001).
In research that focuses on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, Likert-
type scales are generally used to measure orientations. Noels developed
the Language Learning Orientations Scale (Noels et al., 2000) which
comprised 21 items divided into seven subscales measuring the fol-
lowing orientations: amotivation, external regulation, introjected moti-
vation, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation–knowledge, intrinsic
motivation–accomplishment, and intrinsic motivation stimulation.
Noels and colleagues (2001) compared integrative orientations to
the STD framework and found that integrative motivation was linked
to self-determined forms of motivation and was similar to an intrin-
sic orientation. However, they claim that the two orientations should
not be equated as an integrative orientation is more aligned with
issues of social identity and target group contact (Noels, 2005).
Another study found integrative and intrinsic orientations to be sim-
ilar but statistically distinct in a sample of Korean EFL learners
(Pae, 2008).
Until recently most motivation theorizing in language learning has
focused on the unique characteristics inherent in language learning.
For example, there are strong connections between language learning
and identity as is evident from the chapters in this volume (see Morita,
Chapter 3; Ushioda, Chapter 5). However, in many contexts a foreign
language is learned, and taught, as a regular school subject. This is par-
ticularly true of English, with many students studying English from
primary school through to university. For example, in China students
study English throughout their education. They study English at high
school (sometimes even from primary school). They need to pass an
English test to enter university, to graduate from their first degree, to
enter a postgraduate programme, and to gain employment. In such
cases, the focus is on classroom learning, and it seems logical to con-
sider theorizing in motivation from mainstream education outside the
field of language learning.
Lindy Woodrow 193
One of the prevalent motivational frameworks in mainstream school

education is goal orientation theory. This theory addresses orientations
in classroom learning. Implicit within this theory is the possibility
of manipulating student goal orientations with the view of improv-
ing achievement. The two main orientations within this framework
are task goals (also known as mastery or learning goals) and perfor-
mance goals (also known as ego goals) (Ames & Archer, 1988). A task
goal reflects an interest in learning and is akin to intrinsic motiva-

tion. So, a learner with a task goal orientation would be motivated
by learning tasks and achievement for its own sake. The focus of the
task goal oriented learner is on developing competence. A performance
goal reflects a comparison to others (Urdan, Ryan, Anderman, & Gheen,
2002). The focus of a performance goal oriented learner is on displaying
competence. In recent theorizing, a performance orientation has been
divided to reflect positive and negative perspectives. A performance-
approach goal orientation reflects a desire to outperform others, and
a performance-avoid goal orientation reflects a desire to avoid failure
or appearing ignorant (Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002). Research
in this area consistently finds that task goals are related to a positive
motivational profile (Midgley, 2002). In language learning, Woodrow
proposed a model of adaptive learning and found that students who
reported a mastery goal orientation were more likely to have high self-
efficacy, use metacognitive language learning strategies and to have
a high level of English speaking skills (Woodrow, 2006). As with the
previously discussed orientations, task and performance goals are usu-
ally measured using a quantitative Likert-type scale, for example, the
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (Midgley et al., 1997).
Research into orientations has, to date, been mostly quantitative
based on self-reports. Some studies followed a pattern of eliciting rea-
sons for learning a language from learners using open questions and
then used this as the basis for developing instrumentation (Cid et al.,
2009; Noels, 2001). Cid et al. developed the Foreign Language Attitudes
and Goals Survey (FLAGS) based on qualitative data.
Sample study
In order to focus on goal orientations, data were taken from a larger

study that presented a model of adaptive learning for English for
academic purposes (EAP) learners in Australia (Woodrow, 2008). Adap-
tive learning refers to motivational characteristics of successful learn-
ers. High achieving learners tended to have a profile that included
internal type motivational orientations (task goals), high effort, high

self-efficacy, low anxiety and use of metacognitive learning strategies.
The participants in this study were enrolled on intensive English
courses prior to entering Australian universities for full-time study. This
group of learners is very large and very specific. Reflecting globalization
and the emergence of English as a lingua franca, a degree from a uni-
versity in an English-speaking country is highly prized in many regions.
The number of international students at universities in the USA, UK,

Canada, and Australia increases annually and represents a substantial
percentage of the overall student body in many universities. As such,
there is a need to investigate the learning characteristics of this emerging
and important group of language learners.
The methodological approach used in this study may be viewed as
typical of research into goal orientations. Although the study presented
here is small, it represents the essence of methodological approaches of
larger more complicated studies, such as those that use structural equa-
tion modelling. The research is cross-sectional. This means that data
were collected on one occasion and thus present a snapshot of the moti-
vational orientation of the participants at the time of data collection.
The participants completed a questionnaire about their orientations and
took part in an assessment of oral performance.
The data analysis provided a description of the orientations of the
cohort and examined the relationships between the orientations and
language performance.
This study has three aims. First, to find out which goal orientations
are reported by the group of EAP learners; second, to find out which
goals, if any, are related to English language learning and third, to see
whether the learners report single or multiple goals.
The study used goal orientations from theorizing in language learn-
ing and education. The language learning perspective used Gardner’s
integrative and instrumental orientations as measured by the AMTB
(Gardner, 1985a). The education perspective used task and performance
goals as measured by the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS).
The performance goals were divided into performance-approach and
performance-avoid goals (Midgley et al., 1997). Table 13.1 presents
examples of the items used to measure the orientations. Language per-
formance was assessed using an International English Language Testing
Service (IELTS) type oral assessment.
The participants were 275 students studying EAP prior to entering
Australian universities for undergraduate or postgraduate degrees. While
the cohort included students from more than 20 countries, the majority
Lindy Woodrow 195
Table 13.1 Examples of items used to measure goal orientations
Type of orientation and item

Task goal orientation
An important reason why I study English is because I like to learn new things.
Performance-approach goal orientation
Doing better than other students in this class is important to me.
Performance-avoid goal orientation

One of my main goals is to avoid looking like I can’t do my English language
learning tasks.
Integrative goal orientation
Studying English is important to me because I will be able to participate more
freely in the activities of other cultural groups.
Instrumental goal orientation
Studying English is important because I think it will be useful in getting a good
job.
Measured on 5-point Likert scale:
1 2 3 4 5
not at all true Somewhat very true of me
of me true of me
of the students came from Confucian heritage countries such as China,

Japan, and Korea.
The participants were given a questionnaire that assessed their moti-
vational profiles. The goal orientations were measured using 5-point
Likert-scale items based on how true or untrue the statements were to
the participant. The data were entered into SPSS and analysed descrip-
tively in the first instance. The items and descriptive statistics are
presented in Table 13.2.
The results indicated that most important orientations reported by
the learners were instrumental, integrative, and task goal orientations.
It is interesting to note that both educational orientations and language
learning orientations were reported. This shows that classroom-based
educational orientations are relevant to learners of language. This cohort
reported instrumental goal orientations the most. This is understand-
able as the participants all intended to continue their studies and so
English played an important role in their future.
In order to investigate the relationship between the orientations
and language performance, a correlation analysis was performed. The
correlations are presented in Table 13.3.
Table 13.2 Numbers, means, and standard deviations for goal orientations
Item n M SD
Task goal orientation

Want to get better at English 275 4.41 0.76
Like tasks can learn even if mistakes 273 3.93 0.96
Interested in English work 275 3.81 1.07
Like to learn new things 275 3.70 1.19

Like tasks really need to think 273 3.41 1.00
Performance-approach goal orientation
Feel successful if do better than others 270 3.21 1.32
Want to do better than others 274 2.84 1.34
Feel good only one to answer teacher 274 2.81 1.43
Other students think good at English 274 2.24 1.11
Like to show teacher better than others 275 2.15 1.13
Performance-avoid goal orientation
Important avoid embarrassing self 266 2.96 1.16
Avoid looking like can’t do tasks 273 2.78 1.25
Do not look like can’t speak English 273 2.63 1.18
Others won’t think poor at English 272 2.58 1.21
Avoid looking stupid 273 2.06 1.14
Integrative orientation
To be at ease with native speakers 274 4.46 0.74
Meet and converse varied people 275 4.36 0.86
Participate cultural activities 275 4.09 0.97
Understand Western culture 274 3.73 1.21
Instrumental orientation
Need English for future career 275 4.79 0.61
Need English for studies 274 4.63 0.81
Need English for good job 274 4.55 0.79
The correlations indicate that goal orientations are related to each

other. This suggests that the learners may have more than one orien-
tation for learning English. For example, a learner can be integratively
and instrumentally orientated at the same time. This supports Pintrich’s
notion of multiple goals (Pintrich, 2000). The correlation between
performance-avoid goal orientation and task goal orientation is an inter-
esting result because they are positively related to each other. Most
previous research has indicated that these two goal orientations are neg-
atively or unrelated to each other (Midgley et al., 1998). However, some
recent studies that have focused on the contextual influences on goal
orientations reported similar findings (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001).
Lindy Woodrow 197
Table 13.3 Correlations between goal orientations and oral performance
Orientation Task Perf. Perf. Integrative Instrumental Oral

approach avoid
Task 1.00
Perf. 0.14a 1.00
approach
Perf. avoid 0.25b 0.48b 1.00
0.61b 0.17a 0.31b

Integrative 1.00
Instrumental 0.14a 0.30a 0.23b 0.24b 1.00
Oral 0.23b −0.02 −0.23b 0.10 0.05 1.00
a Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

b Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
3.4000
3.0400
Perf. avoid
2.6800
2.3200
1.9600
1.6000
se
ai
K
es
es
H
Th
ne
an
m
hi
na
p
C
Ja
et
Vi
Figure 13.1 Chart of performance-avoid goal orientations and ethnicity of

learners
One factor that has been found to influence goal orientations is eth-
nicity. Salili, Chui, and Lai (2001) found an effect for ethnicity using a
Chinese sample. The study upon which this chapter is based reported a
significant effect for ethnicity resulting from a MANOVA analysis (V =
0.35, F(27,72) = 3.59. p < 0.001). The analysis suggested that learners
from Confucian heritage cultures are more likely to adopt performance-
avoid goals than learners from Europe or South America (Woodrow,
2008). Figure 13.1 shows the mean scores for performance avoid goal
orientations of the learners.
The other relationship of interest is that between integrative and task
goal orientations indicating an overlap in these constructs. The corre-
lations indicate that 37 per cent (R2 = 0. 61 × 0. 61) of task goals can
be explained by integrative goals. In a similar light, Noels and her
colleagues found that intrinsic motivation correlated with integrative
orientation and suggested that this was due to both being indicative of
self-determination (Noels et al., 2001).
When the motivational orientations were examined in relation to
oral performance, a task goal orientation was found to be positively
related to oral performance, and a performance-avoid goal was nega-
tively related to the oral performance. The correlations were significant
but rather small. Interestingly, none of the other orientations were
found to be related to oral performance. So, even though this group

were integratively and instrumentally motivated, this had no direct
effect on their oral performance. This shows that not only are education
goal orientations relevant to this group of language learners, but that
they can predict language performance, and are therefore important to
understand.
The study presented in this chapter used correlations to analyse goal
orientations. This approach of examining the relationship between one
variable and another is typical of goal orientation studies. Correlational
analysis is the basis of more complex analysis such as factor analysis and
path analysis. However, it is only one such method that can be used.
It is important to note that while correlational analysis can indicate
relationships between variables, it does not capture the direction of the
relationship nor can it be interpreted as a cause and effect relationship.
Future direction for research
Recent research in language learning has focused on the dynamic nature

of motivation (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009). This suggests that motiva-
tion does not remain the same but is influenced by the teaching and
learning context. For example, a learner’s preference for a teacher or
method can enhance or inhibit motivation. Language learning is a
lengthy process often taking many years. To get a deep insight into
the dynamic and shifting nature of motivation, longitudinal and in-
depth qualitative studies are necessary. In particular, there is a need for
this type of research into goal orientations as most previous research
has been cross-sectional. The shifting adoption of multiple goal orien-
tations is an area that would also benefit from such a methodological
approach.
English plays an increasingly important role in the world. This role is
certain to impact on the orientations to learn the language. Most chil-
dren and young adults outside English-speaking countries study English
as a compulsory school subject and often competence in English is seen
Lindy Woodrow 199
as a desirable characteristic for school leavers in the job market. In a

similar vein, with the ease of communication, Western culture in terms
of music, films, and celebrities has become more widespread. Thus, for
some young people, learning English may be seen as ‘cool.’ There is
a need for further insights into motivational orientations in light of
English as a lingua franca.
Finally, there is a need for further research into task and performance
goals in language classroom settings. The study in this chapter shows

these orientations are applicable to language learning; however, more
research is needed. For example, even though a small number of learn-
ers in this study reported performance-avoid goals, these were related
to poor language performance. Research is needed to investigate how
learners can be persuaded to not adopt these goals.
Considerations for pedagogy
The most important point about goal orientations from a pedagogi-

cal perspective is that student goal orientations are related to learning
behaviours, for example a task goal oriented student is likely to exert
effort to master the learning task (Anderman & Maehr, 1994), and
it is believed, that to some extent, personal goal orientations can be
influenced by classroom and school goals. So, an exam focused course
with an emphasis on comparison of student performance is likely to
result in a performance goal orientation in students (Anderman, Patrick,
Hruda, & Linnenbrink, 2002).
In any group of language learners, goal orientations are likely to dif-
fer. Some learners learning a language as a school subject may not
even be aware of their reason for learning the language. It is impor-
tant for the teacher to investigate these goals at a class level. In his
book on implementing motivational strategies, Dörnyei (2001) suggests
that individual goals can be discussed at a class level and then group
goals negotiated. He also recommends that these goals are discussed
periodically to revise goals as orientations fluctuate over time.
Making activities and materials relevant to learner orientations is
important. These should reflect learner preferences and interests. For
example, teenagers may respond to computer games or popular music
while EAP learners may respond to a high level of subject specificity.
Making materials as relevant as possible to learners’ preferences and
interests is much more likely to activate motivation, which in turn will
enhance language learning.

Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-
educational model. New York: Peter Lang.
This is Robert Gardner’s latest publication about his socio-educational model of
second language acquisition. The book reports on many research projects that
have used the ATMB throughout the world. It also includes in-depth discussion
of the integrative orientation, integrative motivation and integrativeness, and
counteracts criticism levelled at the theory from different perspectives.

Noels, K., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you
theory. Language Learning, 53(suppl. 1), 33–63.
Kimberly Noels has researched and published widely about the application of
self-determination theory in language learning. Her co-authors are recognized
scholars in the field of SDT, who have researched in a number of disciplines.
This article is perhaps the most cited source for SDT in language learning. The
authors present a thorough discussion of orientations as conceptualized in
SDT in language learning. The research presented in the article focuses on the
structure of SDT goal orientations. In the paper they present an instrument
to measure language learning goal orientations from a self-determination
perspective.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education:
Theory, research and applications (3rd ed.). Chapter 5, pp. 183–207.
This book is a core educational psychology text that has been recently updated.
In this chapter, a synthesis of research into goal orientations is presented
together with references to key research. The major strength of this reading is
the excellent section on classroom implications. It includes suggestions on how
to facilitate task (mastery) goal orientations and promote positive motivation
in learners in the classroom.
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learn-
ing strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
260–267.
Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle
grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.
Anderman, L. H., Patrick, H., Hruda, L. Z., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2002). Observing
classroom goal structures to clarify and expand goal theory. In C. Midgley (Ed.),
Goals, goal structures and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 243–278). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Au, S. Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner’s socio-psychological theory of
second language learning. Language Learning, 38, 75–100.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal moti-
vation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(5), 706–722.
Lindy Woodrow 201
Cid, E., Granena, G., & Tragant, E. (2009). Constructing and validating the
foreign language attitudes and goals survey. System, 37, 496–513.
Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations in second language acqui-
sition: The effects of ethnicity, milieu and target language on their emergence.
Language Learning, 33(3), 273–291.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research
agenda. Language Learning, 41(4), 469–512.
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations and motivations in language learning:
Advances in theory research and application. Language Learning, 53(1), 3–32.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2
self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gardner, R. C. (1985a). The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: Technical report
(1985). Retrieved 9 November 2011 from http://publish.uwo.ca/∼ gardner/
Gardner, R. C. (1985b). Social psychology and language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-
educational model. New York: Peter Lang.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second
language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of
second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language
Journal, 81(3), 344–362.
Masgoret, A., & Gardner, R. (2003). Attitudes, motivation and second language
learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.
Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, goal structures and patterns of adaptive learning.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Anderman, L.,
et al. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’
achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2),
113–131.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., et al.
(1997). Patterns of adaptive learning survey. Michigan: University of Michigan
Press.
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards
a model of intrinsic, extrinsic and integrative orientations and motivation.
In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language learning
(pp. 43–68). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Noels, K. A. (2005). Orientations to learning German: Heritage language learning
and motivational substrates. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62(2), 285–313.
Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic and
integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 57(3), 424–442.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you
theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57–85.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. C., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you
theory. Language Learning, 53(suppl. 1), 33–63.

Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12–28.
Pae, T. I. (2008). Second language orientation and self determination theory:
A structural analysis of the factors affecting second language achievement.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(1), 5–27.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal ori-
entation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3),
544–555.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development and well being. American Psychologist,
55, 68–78.
Salili, F., Chiu, S. Y., & Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context on stu-
dents’ motivational orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu, &
Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning.
New York: Plenum Publishers.
Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of
approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 155–190.
Urdan, T., Ryan, R. M., Anderman, E., & Gheen, M. H. (2002). Goals, goal struc-
tures and avoidance behaviours. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures and
patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 55–84). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Woodrow, L. J. (2006). A model of adaptive language learning. The Modern
Woodrow, L. J. (2008). Adaptive second language learning: The case of EAP students.
Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr Muller.
tion. Language Learning, 54(1), 119–152.
14
Self-directed Learning: Concepts,
Practice, and a Novel Research
Methodology

Richard Pemberton and Lucy Cooker
Introduction
Self-directed learning is a concept with immediate relevance to lan-

guage learning and one that has been discussed extensively within
the educational psychology literature. In many respects, self-directed
learning represents a point of intersection for many of the psycho-
logical constructs that have been considered in other chapters. For
example, when we look at self-directed learning we may observe learn-
ers taking the initiative in setting their own goals, developing learning
strategies or employing various learning styles. An examination of self-
directed learning offers a highly practical window through which to
view actual individual behaviour and how it may be shaped by the
various psychological constructs covered elsewhere in this book.
The reader who is unfamiliar with the idea of self-directed learning
may have an intuitive sense of what it might involve but be unclear as to
how it differs from similar concepts such as learner autonomy and self-
regulated learning. With the practice of self-directed language learning
being as common as ever but the term itself less prevalent in the lan-
guage education field than in the 1990s, it seems an opportune moment
to introduce the concept to new readers.
In this chapter, we aim to clarify some of the concepts relating to
self-directed learning, and in particular focus our discussion on how
self-directed learning and the increasingly mainstream notion of learner
autonomy are related. We then give examples of how self-directed lan-
guage learning can be applied in educational contexts and introduce a
novel way in which it can be researched.
203
204 Self-directed Learning
For the sake of simplicity we refer to self-directed learning (SDL)

throughout rather than to self-directed language learning (SDLL).
It should be clear from the context whether the concept we are referring
to is generic or specific.
Where does ‘Self-Directed Learning’ come from?
The term ‘self-directed learning’ came to prominence in the 1970s in the

fields of adult education in North America and foreign language teach-
ing in Europe, inspired by diverse factors such as humanistic psychology
(e.g., Carl Rogers) and the student activism of the 1960s (see Gremmo &
Riley, 1995).
In the field of adult education, Malcolm Knowles (1975) published
Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers, popularizing the
concept in North America. Meanwhile in the early 1970s, the concepts
of learner autonomy and SDL were being developed in Europe through
the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages Project and the Centre
de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en Langues (CRAPEL) at
the University of Nancy in France. From the CRAPEL, and particularly
through its director Henri Holec, and later, Philip Riley, the theory and
practice of learner autonomy, SDL, and self-access language learning
spread around the world, particularly across Europe, Mexico, Australia,
New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Japan.
What is SDL?
What SDL is
‘Self-directed learning’ appears a simple enough concept. As the term
suggests, it refers to learning that is directed by the learner rather than
by someone else. Indeed, most studies of adult SDL have focused on the
process of planning, conducting and evaluating learning activities – the
technical or methodological aspects of taking responsibility for learning.
Thus, Knowles (1975, p. 18) defined SDL as:
. . . a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without

the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating
learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learn-
ing, choosing and implementing learning strategies, and evaluating
learning outcomes.
However, several writers within the adult education field have taken a
broader approach to SDL, focusing also on the learner’s personality or
Richard Pemberton and Lucy Cooker 205
preference for self-direction (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991) or an inter-

nal change that takes place in the learner (Brookfield, 1986). Thus, the
psychological aspects of taking responsibility for learning have often
been considered as a component of SDL. Candy (1991, p. 23) also clas-
sifies SDL according to learning activities and personal attributes, but
further divides each aspect into two. He categorizes learning activi-
ties into learner control (a mode of organizing learning within formal
education) and autodidaxy (informal self-instructed learning that is con-

ducted outside of institutions), and personal attributes into what he
terms self-management (the psychological willingness or capacity to
take responsibility for learning) and personal autonomy (a philosoph-
ical ideal). Using different terms, in Garrison’s (1997) model of SDL, the
element of motivation was added to self-management (learner control of
goals, resources, methods, etc.) and self-monitoring (reflection on cog-
nitive and metacognitive processes). (For more on motivation and goals
for self-directed learning, see Deci & Ryan [2000] and the chapters in this
book on ‘motivation’ by Ushioda, Chapter 5, and ‘goal orientations’ by
Woodrow, Chapter 13.)
Yet further aspects of SDL are addressed in the adult education field,
such as critical, emancipatory, and political dimensions which move
beyond the methodological and the psychological to the collaborative
transformation and control of learning systems (for summaries, see, e.g.,
Benson, 2011; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).
In the field of language teaching and learning though, SDL tends to
have a much narrower (and indeed, simpler) definition: “learning that
is carried out under the learner’s own direction” (Benson, 2011, p. 37).
This definition has much in common with the process definitions in
the early adult education literature. Holec (1996, p. 90), for example,
stated that:
Learning a language by self-directed learning . . . is learning by tak-

ing one’s own decisions with respect to the objectives to achieve,
the resources and techniques to use, evaluation, and management
over time of the learning programme, with or without help from an
outside agent.
Learner autonomy tends to be defined separately from SDL in the lan-

guage education literature, and not as a sub-component of it. Thus,
Holec defines autonomy as the capacity “to take charge of one’s learn-
ing” (1981, p. 3) and self-direction as “knowing how to realize that
capacity” (1985, p. 188). Similarly, Benson (2011, p. 37) defines SDL as
“something that learners are able to do more or less effectively, accord-

ing to the degree that they possess this capacity [autonomy].” Learner
autonomy then is seen as a prerequisite for SDL to be effective. However,
autonomy does not automatically lead to SDL: a learner might have the
capacity to take charge of their learning, but decide that actually the
way they prefer to learn is for a teacher to be in total control.
Smith (2003) makes a useful distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’
learner autonomy. The goal of the weak form is to train students for

SDL – as envisaged by the teacher – with a focus on strategy use. In con-
trast, the goal of the strong form is enhancement of SDL through a
negotiated syllabus and exercise of the learner’s already existing auton-
omy. Drawing on Smith’s work, we suggest that SDL also ranges between
a weak and a strong form. The strong form is SDL underpinned by
learner autonomy in which the learner is truly self-directed as encap-
sulated in the definitions given above. In the weak form, the learner is
required to carry out SDL, even potentially against their will.
In its strong form, we may argue that SDL is the vehicle through
which autonomy is manifested as a concrete, measurable construct. In a
more colloquial sense, autonomy is the grist to the SDL mill. In this
chapter, we are writing about SDL in its stronger form, as a manifes-
tation of learner autonomy, while conscious that learner control is a
continuum and dependent on many factors.
We hope that the above has started to provide a sense of what SDL
is, or rather how it is generally perceived and will be understood in this
chapter. Let us now clarify what SDL is not.
What SDL is not

First, SDL is not the same as individualized learning. If a teacher changes
the sequence, difficulty and pacing of a series of tasks, for example, to
suit a particular learner, then the individualized or ‘personalized’ learn-
ing programme that the learner follows will be teacher-directed, not
self-directed.
Second, SDL does not necessarily mean learning on your own. Learn-
ing is recognized as a fundamentally social process and effective self-
directed learners make full use of opportunities to interact with other
learners, friends, teachers, experts, and so on. Equally, learning on your
own (e.g., distance learning) does not necessarily mean that you are
engaged in SDL. The key factor is whether you are controlling the
learning process or not.
Third, SDL is not the same as ‘self-regulated learning’ (SRL). The
term SRL developed from the concept of ‘self-regulation,’ which was
strongly influenced by Albert Bandura’s theories of social learning and

self-efficacy (see Mercer’s Chapter 2 on ‘self-concept’). SRL applied
self-regulation to formal educational contexts, combining Bandura’s
theories of learning from the social context with John Flavell’s the-
ories of thinking about thinking (see Anderson’s Chapter 12 on
‘metacognition’). It has been defined as involving “the active, goal-
directed self-control of behaviour, motivation and cognition for aca-
demic tasks by an individual student” (Pintrich, 1995, p. 5). To put this

into simple human terms, Pintrich (1995) gives us model examples of
self-regulated learners such as “Tom, who keeps up with assignments”
and “Diane, who plans ahead” (pp. 3–4).
Another key SRL researcher, Zimmerman (1998), has argued that there
are three stages of SRL: forethought (including teacher-directed and
self-directed goal-setting), performance control (including verbalizing
strategies aloud), and self-reflection. Thus, both SRL and SDL involve the
learner being to some degree in control of planning, carrying out, mon-
itoring and reflecting on their own learning. What then is the difference
between the two terms?
One difference is the extent of the learning involved. Much SRL
practice has involved short-term academic tasks (e.g., employing set
strategies for paragraph- or essay-writing) rather than the longer-
term language-learning projects that have tended to characterize SDL.
Another difference is that in SRL there tends be an emphasis on instruct-
ing students so that they can carry out and internalize a desirable
strategy. As Loyens, Magda, and Rikers (2008) point out, in SRL the
learner may not be able to set their own tasks. By contrast, in SDL, the
learner typically chooses not only the strategies to use (e.g., transcrib-
ing a stretch of L2 speech and comparing the transcript with that of a
native or fluent speaker), but also the type of learning activity they want
to carry out (e.g., watching movies).
Is there a place for SDL in formal educational settings?

One risk with supposed SDL programmes within formal education is
that the major control may rest with the teacher. As Benson (2011,
p. 113) puts it:
If goals and content are other-determined, self-direction at the level

of methods may be reduced to a choice of the most appropriate
method of completing tasks that lack authenticity in terms of the
learner’s own perceived learning needs.
Another risk is that a learning programme may give the learner the
opportunity to plan, carry out and evaluate their learning, but the
learner may have no wish to exert such control.
Is there a place, then, for SDL in formal educational settings?
We believe that there is, despite the tensions involved between enabling
learners to take control of their learning and meeting institutional con-
straints in regards to assessment, and so on. In this section, we give
examples of what we regard as effective SDLL projects at various stages

of the formal educational system that have been successfully facilitated
by teachers.
At the secondary school level, and over a period of many years,
Dam (1995) worked together with the learners in her English classes in
Denmark to develop a learning environment which was jointly directed
by both the teacher and learners. In these classrooms, planning, dia-
logue, evaluation and the keeping of logbooks were crucial factors as
the learners became increasingly more able to take charge of their own
learning (see also ‘annotated bibliography’ below). In another exam-
ple, Trebbi (1995) divided the time for her secondary French classes
in Norway between SDL, whole class discussions about ‘learning to
learn,’ and taught sessions. As in Dam’s classes, learners were respon-
sible for setting objectives, evaluating their learning and planning their
homework.
At the tertiary level, there have been various attempts to incorporate
SDL projects into the curriculum or as components within compulsory
taught courses. For example, the optional, yet credit-bearing SALC Mod-
ule programmes in the self-access learning centre at Kanda University
of International Studies in Japan are ten-week programmes involving
approximately 30 hours of student time. Students plan their learning,
complete a weekly learning diary, meet learning advisers on a regu-
lar basis, and write a final evaluative report of their learning progress
(Cooker & Torpey, 2004).
At the adult education level, four-month courses for adult migrants
at Trinity College Dublin were based around a collaboratively developed
version of the European Language Portfolio, which was designed to help
learners set personal goals, identify topics for the course, and assess their
own progress (Little, 2009).
At the end of the chapter, we will highlight the factors involved in all
of the above programmes – factors that we believe are crucial in effec-
tively supporting SDL within formal educational settings. First, though,
we turn to the question of the type of research that is needed if we are to
provide convincing and useful accounts of the learning that takes place
in such programmes.
Directions for research in SDL
Key figures in the SDL field (e.g., Benson, 2011; Brookfield, 2009; Candy,
1991; Merriam et al., 2007) have called for research that:

• goes beyond self-report data such as from questionnaires, interviews
and learning diaries, particularly where there is only one source of
data, and where the data is collected at one point in time
• incorporates mixed methods, combining both quantitative and qual-
itative approaches, so that it can be clearly seen where findings
converge or diverge
• involves longitudinal studies, so that we can start to see how SDL may
change over time, and how it may be affected by particular factors.
Within the field of language education, Benson (2011) has also called for
research into the important, but under-researched area of out-of-class
learning, where much L2 learning and use takes place.
Self-report data are known to be affected by how the respondent
feels and what the respondent can remember at the time. They are
also believed to be open to bias according to the image that the par-
ticipant wants to represent and the result that the researcher wants to
hear. Such data thus need to be viewed critically, to be examined and
passed back to the participant to see if that is what they really meant,
and to be viewed alongside data from other sources, such as observation
of learning behaviour.
One type of self-report that continues to be popular within the adult
education SDL field is the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale, first
developed by Guglielmino in 1977. Despite its widespread use, this par-
ticular questionnaire has come in for considerable criticism in terms
of its construct validity and applicability to specific contexts (Benson,
2011, pp. 94–95; Candy, 1991, pp. 151–155). More importantly, the use
of a Likert-scale questionnaire as a single research tool suggests that
researchers may have picked on an easily testable instrument ‘because it
is there,’ rather than building up a more complex picture of the learning
that takes place within a particular context. As Dinsmore, Alexander,
and Loughlin (2008, p. 405) argue after analysing over 250 SRL stud-
ies, it is difficult for “broad-brush measures” to “capture the dynamic
interplay of person, environment and behavior that is the hallmark of

self-regulation.” The same is even truer for SDL.
An example of current research into SDL
One example of recent research into SDL which combines quantita-

tive and qualitative research approaches in a highly integrated way is
a study using Q methodology. Henceforth referred to simply as Q, this

is a research methodology which originated from psychology in the first
half of the twentieth century. It has since been used in many social
science disciplines, but there are as yet no published accounts of its
use in applied linguistics research. Q combines several qualitative ele-
ments, such as interviews and document analysis, with the quantitative
element of factor analysis. Its strength is that it enables the researcher
to investigate subjective notions, such as perceptions, viewpoints and
beliefs, in a much more systematic way than is possible using ‘typical’
qualitative research methods. (For a comprehensive overview of Q, see
Watts & Stenner, 2012.)
The second author of this chapter used Q as part of her doctoral
studies on the assessment of language learner autonomy. Language
learner autonomy was operationalized as having seven elements: learner
control, metacognitive awareness, confidence, learning range, critical
reflection, motivation, and information literacy. Four of the elements
match Garrison’s (1997) model of SDL mentioned earlier. These seven
elements were further broken down into constitutive parts, many of
which are commensurate with the processes of needs analysis, goal
setting, materials selection, strategy choice and learning evaluation,
identified by Knowles (1975) in his definition of SDL given earlier in
this chapter.
The purpose of this Q study was to investigate tertiary-level language
students’ perceptions of the outcomes of learning a language outside the
classroom without the direct support of a teacher. In order to make this
interpretation of SDL more concrete for the participants, it was exempli-
fied as learning at home using the Internet, or learning in a more formal
environment, but away from the structured classroom, such as in a self-
access learning centre. By focusing on the manifestation of autonomy
through SDL, the goal for the study was to use the findings to develop
a means by which language students could formatively assess their own
autonomy as learners.
Q comprises seven discrete stages which formed the procedure for the
study. The methodology has been discussed in further detail elsewhere
(Cooker & Nix, 2010, 2011), so here we will simply provide an overview
and a brief description of each stage.
Procedure
Stage 1: Identify a range of opinions about the subject and create a collection
of statements
Statements were compiled from:

• a detailed search of the literature;
• written statements from groups of learners and teachers;
• pilot interview data;
• postings from an online learner autonomy discussion forum.
This collection of 124 statements formed a bank of viewpoints about the
possible outcomes of studying in out-of-class language learning environ-
ments (e.g., “Learning without the encouragement of a teacher makes
me a bit more lazy” and “Learning at my own pace means I am learning
more successfully”).
Stage 2: Select 40–60 statements from the collection

In Q, it is standard procedure for a total of between 40 and 60 statements
to be used for participants to sort according to a pre-arranged format (see
stage 4 below). In order to reduce the total number of statements from
124, those statements where the meaning was duplicated in another
statement were discarded, as were any ambiguous statements. Three
experts in the field were asked to provide feedback on statements they
considered to be irrelevant to the topic and these were also discarded.
The remaining statements were systematically categorized according to
two models: one of generic learning outcomes and one of language
learner autonomy and were then selected proportionately to the total
number of statements in each category. In Q, selecting statements in
this principled way is known as the ‘sampling’ of the opinion range
and is similar to the sampling of participants from a larger population.
In effect, in Q, it is the statements which are randomly sampled rather
than the participants. The total number of statements selected as a result
of this sampling process was 52.
Stage 3: Select participants – ‘people who have something to say’ about

the topic
The participants in the study were 30 language learners who had been
identified in interviews as having had experiences of SDL learning, in
other words, language learning without the direct support of a teacher.
All the participants were university students studying at least one for-
eign language. Ten were at university in Hong Kong, ten in Japan, and
ten in the UK.
Stage 4: Participants rank order selected statements

Each participant was given a set of cards with one of the statements on
each card. They were asked to rank order the cards from −5 to +5 in
the grid pattern shown in Figure 14.1 and according to the following

instruction:
Think about the ways you have developed since studying English out-
side the classroom without the direct support of a teacher (e.g., in a
self-access centre or using the Internet). Sort the statements according
to ‘most like me’ and ‘least like me’.
–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
Figure 14.1 Q methodology sorting grid
Participants were asked to place two cards in the −5 and +5 positions,

three in the −4 and +4 positions, and so on (see also Figure 14.2).
Stage 5: Interview participants about ranking statements

Once the participant had placed all the cards on the grid, they explained
their reasons for choosing the ranking position for the cards in an
interview session.
Stage 6: Analyse the patterns of statements

The patterns of statements gathered during the card-sorting process were
then analysed on dedicated Q software using Q factor analysis tech-
niques. This process is known as ‘by-person’ factor analysis, as opposed
to the more common ‘by-item’ factor analysis, typically used in psy-
chology when analysing psychometric tests. In Q, the factors derived
from the data illustrate typical viewpoints of those who have sorted
the cards.

Figure 14.2 A participant sorting (rank ordering) the statements onto the grid
pattern
Stage 7: Interpret the factors generated

In the final stage, the prototypical factors generated in stage 6 were inter-
preted using the data from the qualitative interviews in stage 5. Through
an iterative process typical in qualitative research, the interviews were
used to layer meaning on the prototypical factors, according to the opin-
ions and viewpoints of the participants. The final results of this process
were narrative descriptions of fictional representative card sorters whose
viewpoints were encapsulated in the prototypical factors.
Findings
Six factors were generated from the card sort data and these represented
the views of 29 out of the 30 participants who took part in the study.
These six factors were interpreted as ‘autonomy modes.’ These modes
are transient, and dependent on time, place, mood, and target lan-
guage. They are distinct from each other and are characterized by the
range of self-reported opinions and behaviours from the small group of
participants involved in this study. Other autonomy modes may well
exist; in that sense this study was exploratory rather than explanatory.
An example of one autonomy mode – which we have termed ‘passionate
socialite’ – is given below.
The language learner as ‘passionate socialite’: a narrative interpretation

One autonomy mode is described as socially motivated and having
an overall sense of enthusiasm and a passion for language learning.
Characteristics of learners who affiliate to this mode include a keen-

ness to find opportunities to use the language they are studying for the
increased social interactions which language learning will afford them.
In other words, there is a close connection between communication
in the real world and developing language proficiency. Learners in this
mode also enjoy learning without the direct control of a teacher because
they are able to learn in ways that interest them: they derive particular
enjoyment in learning using the Internet, films, music and books. They

find learning in these ways to be fun, and thus report that they are
less likely to need encouragement from a teacher. Indeed, their passion
for learning the language is considered a powerful intrinsic motivating
force. In contrast, when they perceive the subject matter as more serious,
and for learners affiliating to this mode ‘grammar’ is often perceived in
this way, they like to have the support of a teacher.
Learners who are part of this mode may well be very people-centred.
In addition to wanting to learn the language in order to communicate
with others, they describe an enhanced desire to learn the language as
also being other-oriented: they want to make others proud of them, or
to use their language proficiency skills to get a good job in order to
repay parents for their time at university, or simply to enjoy the process
of communicating with others. They are also willing to learn with other
people, and thus enjoy the process of collaborative learning.
While these learners tend to like having control over aspects of their
learning environment such as where they study, they are also prepared
to take risks and make mistakes and then use their developing linguistic
awareness to learn from those mistakes. This propensity for linguistic
risk taking, and the fact that they may well consider themselves too lazy
to review their own language use, may be symptoms of ‘living in the
moment,’ and thus not approaching their language learning in an ana-
lytic way. This perceived lack of analytic ability extends to the language
use of others: they do not feel confident in identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of other people’s language.
Application of findings
The findings from this study have been used to develop a tool for
the formative assessment of learner autonomy as necessary for effec-
tive SDL. By identifying their current autonomy mode, learners are
able to consider possible weaknesses in their self-directed learning
approach. In the above example of the ‘passionate socialite,’ this may
be the need to spend more time reviewing their language learning and
use, or the need to consider a more analytic approach to language study.
The opportunity for learners to be able to formatively assess their own

autonomy is important not just because such assessments in themselves
have been proven to have a beneficial effect on learning (e.g., Black,
Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003), but because the ability to self-
assess and to progress from this assessment is at the core of successful
SDL initiatives (e.g., Lamb, 2010).
Implications for SDL research

Q can make a potentially valuable contribution to future research on
SDL. In his analysis of future research directions in SDL, Brockett (2009)
recommends that researchers should use different research methods to
investigate the foundations of self-direction and to find new ways to
measure self-directedness. The study above demonstrates the value of Q
in these terms. Specifically, Q enables the researcher to harness subjec-
tive notions in a methodical way, embracing both the rigour of statistical
analysis and the richness of verbal data.
Although Q is often used, as in this study, to identify shared ways
of thinking from among a particular group, it can also be used with
individuals. For example, an individual may be asked to sort the same
statements on many occasions over a long period of time. Or individuals
may be asked to sort the statements according to different instructions,
such as how much the statements resemble themselves in the past,
themselves now, their ideal future selves and so on.
In the study reported on here, it was found that one further benefit
was the positive reaction that participants had to the research method.
Eight of the participants made unprompted comments such as “Oh it’s
interesting! I had a very good experience” and “I really enjoyed this
activity” after the card-sorting procedure and follow-up interview. Sev-
eral also commented on how the experience had helped them think
about their own learning:
This is very meaningful . . . I don’t know my pattern of learning lan-

guages and this interview helped me to understand myself . . . I don’t
know why I do these thing but now I know.
Considerations for pedagogy
Looking back now to Holec’s (1996) definition of SDL that we quoted

earlier, what are the implications for teaching if the learner makes deci-
sions about every stage of a learning programme? How can the teacher
support this decision-making, within a formal educational context? Ear-

lier we looked at several examples of successful SDL programmes within
formal settings. Let us now highlight some factors that are essential for
such courses to be a success. Holec lists three elements: learning-to-learn
training for the learners, appropriate resources, and training for the staff.
One form of learning-to-learn training involves helping learners
become aware of different learning strategies (e.g., Ellis & Sinclair, 1989)
and styles, along the lines of the tool for formative assessment of

learner autonomy mentioned above (see also Chapter 10 by Cohen
and Chapter 11 by Griffiths in this volume). Other forms of train-
ing involve preparation for and practice in needs analysis, planning,
reflection and evaluation. Some approaches are teacher-directed, others
learner-directed; some preparatory to an SDL programme, and others
integrated with the programme itself.
Appropriate resources for SDL will include authentic materials, mate-
rials constructed by learners, lists of learning suggestions (e.g., “how
to use subtitled films to improve listening comprehension”), multime-
dia equipment and learning resource centres. Staff will also need to be
trained in the appropriate knowledge and skills required for supporting/
facilitating SDL (e.g., in counselling/advising or in knowledge of rele-
vant materials, equipment, learning strategies, etc.).
To the above three elements we would add three more: an appro-
priate balance between structure and choice, sufficient time for the
programme, and institutional support for SDL.
As we have mentioned, choice must be genuine and give the learner
control over goal setting, content and evaluation (as in the four exam-
ples of institutional SDL described earlier) and not merely over pace and
strategies. At the same time, within formal institutions, with their in-
built power relationships, there will need to be structures in place (e.g.,
to complete tasks by a certain date, to attend a set number of meetings
with an adviser). Such constraints do take away from the freedom of the
learner, but without them, the learner in an institutional setting, with
grades and credits on their minds, may simply not take advantage of the
opportunities for SDL provided.
However, time for SDL projects is often severely constrained within
formal curricula, particularly when SDL components are incorporated
into courses. This can have a major impact, and the most successful
programmes are often those where SDL processes are supported over
months and years. Finally, it is vital for SDL to become part of the culture
of the school or department. Otherwise any SDL innovation will die as
soon as the innovator leaves.
The above six elements may not all be feasible within a given context
(although Holec [1996, p. 90] calls the first three “sine qua non prerequi-
sites”). But it is surprising how much damage to an SDL programme one
missing element can cause. If we are serious about helping our students
take control of their own language learning, then we owe it to them to
ensure that all pieces of the jigsaw are in place.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to
theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
This is a comprehensive and well-written survey of the SDL literature in adult
education. An excellent starting place for readers interested in SDL concepts
from outside the language education field.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin:
Authentik.
Using a selection of data collected over 15 years in a Danish school, this book
takes you inside the author’s English class to show what happens as the teacher
and learners move from a teacher-directed to a teacher-/learner-directed envi-
ronment. An honest and unique account of supporting SDL in the classroom.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd
ed.). Harlow: Longman.
This book provides wide-ranging coverage of the theory and practice of learner
autonomy and self-directed language learning. The budding researcher is likely
to find the section on ‘Researching autonomy’ particularly helpful.
References
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd ed.).
Harlow: Longman.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for
learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Brockett, R. G. (2009). Moving forward: An agenda for future research on self-
directed learning. In M. G. Derrick & M. K. Ponton (Eds.), Emerging directions in
self-directed learning (pp. 37–50). Chicago, IL: Discovery Association Publishing
House.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives
on theory, research and practice. London: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Self-directed learning. In R. Maclean & D. Wilson (Eds.),
International handbook of education for the changing world of work (pp. 2615–
2628). Bonn: UNESCO-EVOC/Springer.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory
and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cooker, L., & Nix, M. (2010). On Q: An appropriate methodology for researching

autonomy? Part 1. Learning Learning, 17(2), 24–30. JALT Learner Development
SIG. Retrieved 15 November 2011 from http://ld-sig. org/LL/17two/2010b.pdf
Cooker, L., & Nix, M. (2011). On Q: An appropriate methodology for researching
autonomy? Part 2. Learning Learning, 18(1), 31–38. JALT Learner Development
SIG. Retrieved 15 November 2011 from http://ld-sig. org/LL/18one/2011a.pdf
Cooker, L., & Torpey, M. (2004). From the classroom to the self-access centre:
A chronicle of learner-centred curriculum development. The Language Teacher,
28(6), 11–16. Retrieved 15 November 2011 from http://jalt-publications.

org/tlt/articles/704-classroom-self-access-centre-chronicle-learner-centred-
curriculum-development
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin:
Authentik.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). What is the self in self-directed learning? Findings
from recent motivational research. In G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-
directed learning (pp. 75–92). Münster: Waxmann.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the con-
ceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English: A course in learner training.
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Towards a comprehensive model.
Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18–33.
Gremmo, M.-J., & Riley, P. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self access
in language teaching and learning: The history of an idea. System, 23(2),
151–164.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Council of
Europe/Pergamon Press.
Holec, H. (1985). On autonomy: some elementary concepts. In P. Riley (Ed.),
Discourse and learning (pp. 173–190). London: Longman.
Holec, H. (1996). Self-directed learning: An alternative form of training. Language
Teaching, 29(2), 89–93.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers.
Cambridge: The Adult Education Company.
Lamb, T. (2010). Assessment of autonomy or assessment for autonomy? Evalu-
ating learner autonomy for formative purposes. In A. Paran & L. Sercu (Eds.),
Testing the untestable in language education (pp. 98–119). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Little, D. (2009). Learner autonomy, the European Language Portfolio and teacher
development. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining
control: Autonomy and language learning (pp. 147–173). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-
based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 20, 411–427.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 63, 3–12.
Smith, R. C. (2003). Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-)appropriate method-

ology. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures:
Language education perspectives (pp. 129–146). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Trebbi, T. (1995). Apprentissage auto-dirigé et enseignement secondaire: un centre de
resources au college (Self-directed learning and secondary teaching: A college
resource centre). Mélanges CRAPEL, 22, 169–192. Retrieved 15 November 2011
from http://revues. univ-nancy2. fr/melangesCrapel/IMG/pdf/11_trebbi. pdf
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method, &
interpretation. London: Sage.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-regulating cycles of academic regu-
lation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk &
B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-regulated
practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Guilford Press.
15
Group Dynamics: Collaborative
Agency in Present Communities
of Imagination

Tim Murphey, Joseph Falout, Yoshifumi Fukada,
and Tetsuya Fukuda
Introduction
In this chapter, we focus on the importance of groups in the language

learning process and consider how several of the constructs addressed
in other chapters of this book function together in group contexts. The
general tendency within research in both educational psychology and
second language education has been to regard the individual as the
principal unit of investigation, but here we hope to make the case for
a complementary recognition of the role of groups in understanding
behaviour and learning. In order to do this we first consider some of
the literature relating to the concept of group dynamics. In this chapter,
we take an intentionally broad view of this concept, which we use as
an umbrella term to include, what have been called in the literature,
community practices, cooperative practices, and collaborative practices.
We then support this discussion of the literature by presenting a research
study that we believe offers a pedagogically accessible framework for
both teachers and researchers to understand language learning groups.
Overview of the research
In this overview, we will first describe a growing recognition in the liter-

ature of the importance of sociocultural factors on human behaviour, an
acknowledgement that individuals do not think or act in isolation from
others. We will then consider some of the implications this has for lan-
guage education. In the next section, we will look at our understanding
220
Tim Murphey et al. 221
of groups and how individuals participate in groups. In the final part of

this review, we will look at the role of groups in learning, giving special
attention to understandings of the concept of agency and how these can
be applied to group behaviour.
The social turn

A good place to begin our discussion of the role of groups in learning
is with one of the most significant theories of learning of the twenti-

eth century, Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. Sociocultural Theory has
attracted a considerable amount of interest and detailed discussion (for
an overview of sociocultural theory and second language learning see
Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), and one of its fundamental tenets is the
importance of social learning. Vygotsky’s (1981) general law of cultural
development states that:
Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice or

on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on
the psychological plane. First it appears between two people as
an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an
intrapsychological category.
(p. 163)
The importance of socialization in the language learning process was

identified by the ethnographer Watson-Gegeo, who wrote in TESOL
Quarterly:
The substitution of socialization for acquisition places language

learning within the more comprehensive domain of socialization, the
lifelong process through which individuals are initiated into cultural
meanings and learn to perform the skills, tasks, roles, and identities
expected by whatever society or societies they may live in.
(1988, p. 582)
Watson-Gegeo’s observations foreshadowed what is known as ‘the

social turn’ in second language acquisition (SLA). Traditionally, SLA has
focused on individual learners and on what appear to be individual
differences and the effect these have on learning outcomes. However,
many researchers in recent years, such as David Block (2003), have chal-
lenged this individualist view. This movement assigns a more central
role to the social group and the acts of socialization within applied
linguistics in general and SLA in particular. Many of the concerns of
222 Group Dynamics
group dynamics are reflected in the principles underpinning this social

turn (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998; McCafferty,
Jacobs, & DaSilva Iddings, 2006).
The distinction between theories of learning that focus on individual
cognition and those that emphasize sociocultural factors is an impor-
tant one. In recent years, however, there have been attempts to integrate
both perspectives, and such approaches are referred to as sociocognitive.
One sociocognitive approach, proposed by Atkinson (2010), is of par-

ticular interest to our discussion of language learning group dynamics.
Atkinson introduces the concepts of ‘extended cognition’ and ‘embod-
ied cognition’ to SLA. Extended cognition implies that our thoughts
are “inextricably tied to the external environment” (p. 599). The envi-
ronments in which we live contribute crucially to our thoughts and
activities. The concept of extended cognition questions a strict sepa-
ration between the mind and the environment, arguing that elements
of the external environment can be seen as extensions of the mind
itself. This ‘extension’ naturally includes other people, their actions, and
language.
Embodied cognition “views cognitive activity as grounded in bodily
states and actions” (p. 599), in other words, the context is internalized
by the individual and the way it is internalized can change our moods,
physiology, and ability to think in different ways. We refer to this as
‘context-in-person.’ This sociocognitive view of extended and embod-
ied cognition can be seen in key pedagogical concepts, such as the zone
of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962). It is also seen in concepts
of particular relevance to language learners, such as imitative learning
(e.g., shadowing, Murphey, 2001; near peer role modelling, Murphey &
Arao, 2001), and small group interaction (e.g., cooperative learning,
Johnson & Johnson, 1998). (See glossary for an explanation of these
terms.)
Cognition seen as extended and embodied can both enrich and prob-
lematize practice. Rather than the traditional SLA focus on what to
learn, a person-in-context relational view (Ushioda, 2009) focuses more
on who is learning, with whom, where, when, and why. With this
approach, the agency of learners, a concept we discuss in more detail
later in the chapter, becomes an important aspect of our teaching, as
learners are then seen as unique individuals with their own identities,
histories, goals, and intentions. This view “capture[s] the mutually con-
stitutive relationship between persons and the contexts in which they
act – a relationship that is dynamic, complex and non-linear” (ibid.
p. 218). For language learners, a key element of the ‘context in which
they act’ is the learning group.
Understanding groups
We now turn our attention to how groups have been theorized in the
literature, and more specifically to how individuals belong to groups and
how group membership affects learning behaviour.
Groups . . . are a defining characteristic of human life, a reflection

of our inherently social nature, a product of our natural pro-
clivity to cooperate to satisfy wants and needs and to avoid the

anguish resulting from isolation and failure to establish positive
social relationships.
(Nelson & Murphey, 2011, p. 81)
Although groups are an inevitable and intrinsic aspect of the human

experience, not all groups function successfully. As Dörnyei and
Murphey (2003, p. 4) observe, a learning group tends to take on a life
of its own, with its internal dynamics being a major factor in its suc-
cess. Understanding these dynamics is essential to understanding how
we learn.
Good group dynamics can bring their members a sense of
‘belongingness,’ the fundamental human need to be accepted by oth-
ers (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), when there are shared feelings of
mutual care and support. In her extensive review of the related research,
Osterman (2000) summarizes that feelings of acceptance in the class-
room, as opposed to exclusion and rejection, are more likely to lead
to feelings of security and well-being in students, who also exhibit
autonomous and self-regulated behaviours. Students who feel a sense
of belonging among their classroom peers have a stronger sense of
identity and are willing to accept social norms and teacher author-
ity; have greater interest and engagement in academic activities with
a corresponding record of higher academic achievement; are more help-
ful towards and considerate of others, even those outside of their
friendship groups; are less likely to misbehave, disengage from learn-
ing activities, or quit school; and are more cooperative in learning and
communicating, fostering further developments of their ideas and hav-
ing an increased appreciation of the members within their classroom
community.
Communities of practice
Arguably the most popular model of group and collaborative work in
recent years is the communities of practice model proposed by Lave and
Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998). In a community of practice, com-
munity identity is continually being shaped by its members and their
224 Group Dynamics
experiences of working or learning together. Motivation to share com-

mon practices comes from three modes of belonging to that community:
engagement, imagination, and alignment (Wenger, 1998). Engagement
is interaction situated in a specific space and time. With imagination,
we can visualize our own trajectories, from where we have been to
where we are heading. Imagination also gives us an understanding of
how our engagement is situated within the world around us (Wenger,
1998). Alignment represents the regulation of our behaviours in order to

fit into our immediate social environments to the degree that we wish
to identify ourselves with other people and their practices; the desire
we have to belong to a certain group affects how we behave (Finkel &
Baumeister, 2010).
A community of practice can form in a classroom. However, students
do not necessarily attend a class with the intention of belonging to a
community; they are often more immediately concerned with earning
credits in order to graduate and perhaps learn something useful for their
future careers. Classroom practices may not invite much engagement
or imagination from the students other than to envision what might
happen should they manage or fail to align by following rules, doing
homework, or passing exams. Additionally, certain individuals may feel
excluded from belonging to communities of practice through the orga-
nizational practices of educational institutions, such as those that focus
on preparing for performance-based outcomes (i.e., high-stakes tests)
rather than on developing a community of belonging (Osterman, 2000).
Quinn (2010) further critiques institutional practices that position learn-
ers outside dominant communities of practice through policies such
as restricting enrolment to classes based on grade point average (as a
reward), or holding students back for not having pre-requisites.
Imagined social capital and imagined communities

Many students can become disenfranchised from formal education.
Quinn (2010) argues that an important way for them to reconnect with
social learning is through what she calls their ‘imagined social capital.’
She explains this concept as “the benefit that is created by participating
in imagined or symbolic networks” (p. 68). Quinn draws on case stud-
ies with university dropouts, homeless adults, and at-risk youths of low
socio-economic status, describing how they were able to transform their
identities by imagining their engagement in future social networks of
professionals, and thus re-engage with present social networks of learn-
ers. By imagining their belonging to a network of professional and social
contacts in the future, they could find ways of belonging to communi-

ties in the present that help them to continue to develop their identities
and learning. The lack of imagined social capital can be shown by the
sentiments of a school administrator from an impoverished district, who
spoke of the students – “their gifts are lost to poverty and turmoil and
the damage done by knowing that they are written off by their society. Many
of these children have no sense of something they belong to” (italics
ours, quoted in Kozol, 1991, pp. 33–34).

For language learners, Norton (2001) indicates that a very similar
concept, imagined communities, can be crucial for engagement in the
classroom. The extent to which teachers can affirm learners’ imagined
communities might profoundly affect their investments – their reasons,
ways, and efforts (see Morita, Chapter 3, this volume) – in learning the
second language (Fukada, 2009). Norton stresses this may be difficult for
teachers, for each learner has unique experiences and investments, and
teachers often incorporate pedagogical practices aimed more at invoking
participation rather than imagination. With these insights, Norton sug-
gests including – alongside increasing practice and capabilities using the
L2 – the imagining of moving from the margins towards the centre of a
social network. This further suggests a pedagogy that situates practising
and imagining within an accepting social circle of peers as a means to
engender better group dynamics.
Emotional contagion
“Group learning is underpinned by several strands of research, all
premised on the belief that learning in groups offers a richer variety
of benefits than learning by oneself” (Nelson & Murphey, 2011, p. 81).
Belonging to a group offers access to resources that are not available to
individual learners. A group is more than a mere collection of disparate
individuals. Within a group, cognitions and emotions seem to be inex-
tricably linked to each other and are themselves changed through social
exchanges (Carlston, 2010, pp. 86–88; cf. Damasio, 2010). Hatfield,
Cacioppo, and Rapson (1994) describe the interdependencies of prim-
itive emotional contagion as “the tendency to automatically mimic and
synchronize facial expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements
with those of another person and consequently, to converge emotion-
ally” (p. 5). They stress that “an important consequence of emotional
contagion is an attentional, emotional, and behavioral synchrony that
has the same adaptive utility (and drawbacks) for social entities (dyads,
groups) as has emotion for the individual” (ibid., p. 5). Emotional
contagion certainly plays a key role in group dynamics and language
226 Group Dynamics
learning psychology, consistent with Imai’s (2010) assertion that the

social aspects of emotions in groups of learners can promote emotional
development and learning.
Collaborative agency
At the beginning of this chapter we argued that the social turn in
SLA requires teachers to devote more attention to enhancing the agency
of learners. The concept of agency is essentially concerned with the

capacity for people to make choices and to act on them. Agency is
often discussed in terms of individuals, yet Nelson and Murphey (2011)
identify a trend in the literature towards regarding agency as being sit-
uated within a specific context. In a review of the literature on agency
in language learning, they note Candlin and Sarangi’s (2004, p. xiii)
conceptualization of agency as “the self-conscious reflexive actions of
human beings.” To this basic definition, they point out that agency
additionally includes “the ability to assign relevance and significance to
things and events” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 142), and that agency is
always realized in a context with others. This is consistent with Lantolf
and Pavlenko’s (2001, p. 148) observation that agency is “unique to
individuals and co-constructed” but “never a ‘property’ of a particular
individual; rather, it is a relationship that is constantly co-constructed
and renegotiated with those around the individual and with the society
at large.”
This idea that agency is constantly co-constructed and renegotiated
allows us to think of agency as collaborative. It also indicates how posi-
tive group dynamics and belonging to communities might provide more
opportunities for these co-constructions and negotiations to take place.
Social psychologists Forsyth and Burnette (2010) note, “On a practical
level, much of the world’s work is done by groups, so by understanding
groups we move towards making them more efficient” (p. 524), in other
words more agentic.
Researching groups
While group counselling and education research usually publishes qual-

itative case studies and action research regarding group dynamics, busi-
ness community research more often involves quantitative economic
data juxtaposed with responses to work-related satisfaction scales. How-
ever, there are also mixed method studies in all fields. There has been
extensive research into communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), with
the business world continually researching how teams might work more
efficiently (Harvard Business Press, 2009; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder,

2002). In education there has been extensive research into cooperative
and collaborative group work (see Nelson, 2009 for a comprehensive lit-
erature review). Although the importance of group dynamics is widely
recognized in language learning (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), there has
been little empirical research in the field. We believe that one reason for
this might be the lack of a clear research framework, which is why we
are proposing present community of imagination as a possible unit of

analysis. (See discussion for the theoretical outlines.)
Our group dynamics study
The purpose of our study was to explore the relationships between stu-
dents’ group interactions on three motivational time frames of their L2
learning: past, present, and future. We conducted this study with 466
Japanese undergraduates in 25 departments at six Japanese universities.
We explored learners’ perceptions of their pasts through what we
refer to as Antecedent Conditions of the Learner (ACL), which could
be thought of as academic emotional baggage. These represent moti-
vational predispositions deriving from the individual learner’s views of
past experiences with a specific academic subject (Murphey & Falout, in
press). We looked at the present, their current investment in L2 learn-
ing, through learners’ own assessments of their efforts to use and learn
the L2 both in class and out of class. We employed the concept of possi-
ble selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986), the images individuals have of what
they may one day become, to understand learners’ perceptions of their
futures.
In the first of three steps, we administered a pre-survey questionnaire
(Appendix 15A) consisting of multiple 6-point Likert-scale questions to
measure:
(1) their ACL levels, meaning their perceptions of previous English

learning experiences (items a–f);
(2) the extent of their investment in learning English inside and outside
the classroom (items s–x, after the first 3 weeks of classes);
(3) the strength or clarity of their English-related possible selves in the
contexts of their future careers and their everyday lives (items k–n).
We adopted this quantitative approach in our study as we were keen

to statistically measure possible changes in these three factors and their
interrelationships across one semester.
228 Group Dynamics
Second, during the semester, each teacher frequently conducted pair

or small group activities to increase students’ opportunities for study-
ing or practising English together to learn ways of communicating in
English from each other. In addition, we organized various activities to
help the participants visualize their possible selves related to English
and to share their visions with their classmates. (For details of these
activities, see Fukada, Fukuda, Falout, & Murphey, 2011.)
Third, at the end of the semester, we administered a post-survey ques-

tionnaire using the same questions as in the pre-survey questionnaire
and compared the mean scores of their responses.
Results
Pre-survey results
The results (Figure 15.1) indicate that many of the participants were
able to visualize relatively well how they would be using English in
their future, and that the average perception of their past English learn-
ing experiences was moderately positive. They were relatively eager to
participate in class activities, although they were not practising English
autonomously outside the classroom at the beginning of the semester.
Semester Start
M = 4.15
M = 3.58 Possible
ACL p = .70∗∗ selves
(N = 393)
p = .26∗∗ p = .23∗∗
(N = 361) (N = 361)
M = 4.17
In-class
p = .42∗∗ p = .42∗∗
(N = 360)
(N = 360)
p = .30∗∗
(N = 409)
M = 2.77
Out-of-class investment
Figure 15.1 Semester start measurements

∗∗ Correlation is significant at p < 0.01
The relationships among the three factors indicate that the students
who had positive past perceptions of English learning could visualize
more clearly how they would be using the language in their future
lives and careers. The pre-survey results also showed that those whose
past learning experiences were positive or who visualized clear L2 pos-
sible selves were inclined to practise English autonomously outside the
classroom, but not necessarily inside the classroom. That is, even if the
students had positive perceptions towards English or clear L2 possible

selves, they still might participate passively or even negatively inside
the classroom.
Post-survey results
The post-survey results (Figure 15.2) imply a strong relationship
between participants’ ability to form more positive ACLs, that is per-
ceptions of their own pasts, and the sharing of each other’s possible
selves, social interaction, and learning from each other within their
groups. Concomitant with these motivational increases, the correlations
between their perceptions of past English learning experiences, in-class
Semester End
PCOl
M = 4.15
M = 3.99
Possible
ACL p = .73∗∗ selves
(N = 367)
p = .48∗∗ p = .33**
(N = 375) (N = 368)
M = 4.30
In-class
p = .66∗∗ p = .54∗∗
(N = 374) p = .46∗∗ (N = 366)
(N = 379)
M = 3.16
Out-of-class
investment
Figure 15.2 Semester end measurements

∗∗ Correlation is significant at p < 0.01
230 Group Dynamics
investment, out-of-class investment, and possible selves became much

stronger.
Discussion
Concerning individuals learning within social contexts and across time,
Murphey and Falout (in press) proposed that when individuals learn in
social contexts across time, the past and future do not exist separately,
but only merge into the continually evolving now. Figure 15.3 shows

learners’ pasts and futures emerging from participation in present com-
munities of imagination and some of the activities we used to access
these ‘pasts,’ ‘presents,’ and ‘futures.’ (e.g., we asked the students to
share their past English learning experiences through Language Learn-
ing Histories; in the present, they were required to keep learning records
of their learning [action logs], and for the future, they participated in
an imaginary class reunion ten years [ten-year reunion] after graduating
Presents
Action Logs
Newsletters
Pasts (ACLs) Futures
Language Learning Possible selves tree
Histories (LLHs) ten-year reunion
Possible selves
Near peer role modelling
Belonging
PCOIs PCOIs
>> Emerging pasts Present communities of >> Emerging futures

imagination (PCOIs)
Contexts
Figure 15.3 Three overlapping mind times situated in emerging contexts

From Murphey & Falout (in press).
from college.) We can only conceptualize our pasts and futures from
‘now.’ Each time we tell someone about our past, it is apt to change
somewhat because we are ‘now’ different and interpret things differ-
ently from how we did even just moments before. For this reason,
we have chosen to employ the term ‘emerging pasts.’ Of course, our
futures are made from thinking of possibilities and things that actu-
ally happen in the ever-evolving present, thus emerging presents and
futures. While originally designed to look at individual differences, this

schemata (Figure 15.3) of individual learning fits well if overlapping
on top of the groupwork study (Figure 15.2). The figure shows a self-
emerging out of the past and moving into the future, investing effort in
a present learning context, a classroom of peers.
We believe that, by focusing on the three time periods that influence
student learning, the concept of a present community of imagination
offers teachers, researchers, and students a pragmatic framework for
understanding group dynamics. Imaginatively working together, for
example, on composing their language learning histories, their daily
action logs, or a ten-year class reunion activity, creates belonging and
the thrill of collaborative agency (Murphey, 2010). These activities place
the focus on the students, their lives and reactions to real-life events.
We feel conceptualizing a class in this way is especially useful for
teachers wishing to actively stimulate more participation (agency and
belonging), thus improving group dynamics. Below, based on our under-
standing of the literature and emerging from our ongoing research,
we list some key characteristics of learning groups seen as present
communities of imagination:
• Present communities of imagination exist in degrees from destructive

to unproductive, and from productive to ecstatic.
• They are composed of those in your presence at any point in time.
• They include both your imagined and lived social capital.
• Using imagined social capital it is possible to create present commu-
nities of imagination out of animals, nature, objects, and so on, as
children naturally do.
• Present communities of imagination can dynamically change with
any member’s own body states (embodied cognition) and contact
with the external environment (extended cognition).
• People in the same group are not necessarily experiencing the same
present community of imagination, as each person can experience
things differently. Signs that they are experiencing similar present
232 Group Dynamics
communities of imagination stem from rapport signals such as

similar facial expressions, movements, and vocalizations, as with
emotional contagion.
The concept of a present community of imagination, with its emphasis

on participation and engagement with others through imagination, has
clear roots in the communities of practice model, which we selected as
our model of group behaviour. It also has clear, though perhaps more

indirect, links with some of the other constructs discussed in the litera-
ture review. It is our hope that by highlighting the temporal dimension,
how our belonging to groups is situated in time, connecting past and
present, the concept of a present community of imagination may offer
a further possible window through which both teachers and researchers
can investigate and understand group dynamics.
Implications for research and teaching
We think that the concept of present communities of imagination

can help us act more purposefully as teachers to address students’
pasts, presents, and futures – all within our unfolding present groups.
In other words, they have pedagogical accessibility. This offers a holistic
framework for investigating micro, macro, and proleptic psychologi-
cal development. This framework may be observed, stimulated, and
better understood by research and recordable by teachers through possi-
bly accounting for socio-historical, environmental, and personal factors
across time. We find that the concept of present communities of imag-
ination aligns well with other key theories, both from within and
without SLA, such as Atkinson’s (2010) description of embodied and
extended cognition, Ushioda’s (2009) person-in-context relational view,
Hatfield et al.’s (1994) emotional contagion, and Vygotsky’s (1981)
general law of cultural development.
Accessing student experiences and aspirations could help teachers
adjust to their students’:
• ACLs, the baggage students bring to the classroom and the impact
it might have on their present and future learning (e.g., language
learning histories, Murphey, 1999);
• the present activities and their reception (e.g., action logging,
Murphey, 1993; friends, Murphey, 1998);
• what we might do to help students foresee a bright, inviting future
(e.g., possible selves activities, Fukada et al., 2011), which might
inspire them to act in ways that realize these new goals in collab-
oration with others.
Student thinking and behaviour depends crucially on the present com-

munities of imagination in the classroom, the advantages created by
interactions within groups. It also depends on the affordances available,
mainly other members of the learning group, and learners’ propen-
sity to reframe the negative as positive, and their willingness to model

engagement and to allow their dreams to become contagious. This
simultaneously requires and creates good group dynamics.
Teachers as leaders in these communities are positioned to have sub-
stantial influence through their choice of class structures and activities,
particularly in encouraging students to interact in ways that allow for
creating positive emotional and aspirational contagion, and sharing
learning strategies. Indeed, it could be said that the effective manage-
ment of present communities of imagination in the macro structures
and in the micro relationships is a teacher’s most crucial role.
We foresee action research possibly using present communities of
imagination to continually:
• promote better learning by accessing beneficial ACLs and finding

ways to reframe unhelpful experiences;
• refine understandings of how we might improve in- and out-of-class
investment;
• promote imaginative and multiple possible selves to ensure hopeful
futures.
The sample study above suggests that all three aspects can be stimulated
within the affordance of classroom present communities of imagination
to co-constructively enhance group dynamics, producing conditions
more favourable for L2 acquisition. The study also reminds us of some
of the limitations of this kind of quantitative research; this approach
allows us to test hypotheses and make certain generalizations. How-
ever, we learn little of the actual processes that can contribute to or
harm good group dynamics, the characteristics of present communities
of imagination we noted earlier, for example, rapport signals such as
similar facial expressions, movements, and vocalizations. Investigating
these actual processes calls for novel, trans-disciplinary approaches to
research (see Atkinson, 2010; Lee, Dina, Joaquin, Mates & Schumann,
2010; Porges, 2011, Quinn, 2010) that link fields and create new
understandings.
234 Group Dynamics
Conclusion
Human agency stems from our ability to take more control over how
we use our minds, benefit from our collaborators, help others, and take
advantage of the opportunities available in the emerging present. While
the past is over, its conditioning of and usefulness in the present is
far from finished. When groups reprocess the past they give it mean-
ing in the emerging presents. While the future is not here yet, it is
forever here in the present as the present projects into the future and

determines greatly what will happen to a group that dares to push the
envelope. These are the emerging pasts and futures that shape group
dynamics.
“The events of inner experience, as emergent properties of brain pro-
cesses, become themselves explanatory causal constructs in their own
right, interacting at their own level with their own laws and dynamics”
(Sperry, 1982, p. 1226). By imagining we create neural networks that
have substance, and sharing our imagination spurs the growth of neural
networks in ourselves and others. Thus, belonging to groups – whether
imagined or lived – gives us more agency and allows us to do things that
we cannot do alone.
Appendix 15A Questionnaire
Pre/Post-survey
Name: Number:
Date: Gender: M/F Major:

TOEIC: TOEIC Bridge: Eiken Grade:
INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer the following questions about your

English learning. Circle the level of your agreement with the state-
ments. (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly disagree,
4 = Slightly agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly agree)
(s) I regularly used English in class with my classmates this semester.

1/2/3/4/5/6
(t) Even if the teacher were not close to me, or could not hear me, I still
spoke English with my classmates in class this semester. 1/2/3/4/5/6
(u) This semester, I made an effort to speak more English with my class-
mates outside of class. 1/2/3/4/5/6
(v) I supported my classmates and we supported each other’s English

learning reciprocally, and/or talked about our English-related future
careers outside of class. 1/2/3/4/5/6
(w) This semester, I made an effort to speak more English with other
people (high-school friends, English teacher at language school, parents,
etc.) outside of class. 1/2/3/4/5/6
(x) This semester, other people and I supported each other’s English

learning reciprocally, or talked about our English-related future careers
outside of class. 1/2/3/4/5/6
(a) Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English in class.
1/2/3/4/5/6
(b) Generally, I think that I enjoy learning English out of class.
1/2/3/4/5/6
(c) I like studying English now. 1/2/3/4/5/6
(d) Even if English was not a compulsory subject, I would choose to

study it. 1/2/3/4/5/6
(e) I am confident in learning English now. 1/2/3/4/5/6

(f) I like studying or practicing English with friends or classmates.
1/2/3/4/5/6
(k) To what extent would you like to use English in your daily life after
graduation? Not at all Very much 1/2/3/4/5/6
(l) To what extent would you like to be using English in your daily life in
20 years? 1/2/3/4/5/6
(m) To what extent would you like to get a job using your English abili-
ties after graduation? 1/2/3/4/5/6
(n) To what extent would you like to be using English in your work in
20 years? 1/2/3/4/5/6
(o) Could you describe in your own words a possible job, or jobs that
you might have using English? What exactly would you be doing in
the job and how would you use your English? Give as many details as
possible.
N.B. Items in this survey are not ordered alphabetically due to combin-
ing items from earlier versions of our surveys without re-lettering them.
236 Group Dynamics

Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition and second language acqui-
sition. Applied Linguistics, 31(5), 599–622.
Introducing a sociocognitive approach, Atkinson shows how people think and
learn, not alone within their own minds, but rather through accessing and
connecting with cognitive tools, social practices, and the people around them
in their social world. He illustrates the extended and embodied cognition of a
young Japanese learner of English interacting with her aunt.

Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010) Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism
and social learning. New York: Routledge.
Starting with an overview of social constructivist and other related theo-
ries/concepts, this book introduces some empirical evidence of the effect
of students’ interactions/collaboration, then provides us with varieties of
pedagogical approaches and strategies to realize social constructivist-based
learning.
Quinn, J. (2010). Learning communities and imagined social capital: Learning to
belong. New York: Continuum.
Children, youth, and adults of all ages utilize imagined resources – what Quinn
calls imagined social capital – to make meaning of their own lives, and their
own lives meaningful. Critiquing learning communities as places that exclude
rather than include many from education, Quinn explains the power of imag-
ined social capital for individuals to keep learning and find belonging in the
real world. She illustrates this with several in-depth studies of marginalized
youth from the UK.
References
Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition and second language acqui-
sition. Applied Linguistics, 31(5), 599–622.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interper-
sonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
117(3), 497–529.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Preface. In A. Sealey & B. Carter, Applied
linguistics as social science (pp. xiii–xv). London: Continuum.
Carlston, D. (2010). Social cognition. In R. Baumeister & E. Finkel (Eds.),
Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 63–99). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Damasio, A. (2010). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York:
Pantheon.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom.
Ehrman, M., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language
education: The visible and invisible classroom. London: Sage.
Finkel, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Attraction and rejection. In

R. Baumeister & E. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the
science (pp. 419–459). New York: Oxford University Press.
Forsyth, D., & Burnette, J. (2010). Group processes. In R. Baumeister & E. Finkel
(Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 495–534).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Fukada, Y. (2009). Statistical analysis of imagined communities. In A. M. Stoke
(Ed.), JALT2008 Conference Proceedings (pp. 331–343). Tokyo: JALT.
Fukada, Y., Fukuda, T., Falout, J., & Murphey, T. (2011). Increasing motiva-

tion with possible selves. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010 Conference Proceedings
(pp. 337–349). Tokyo: JALT.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge:
Harvard Business Press. (2009). Harvard business review on collaborating across silos.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an
EFL Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 278–292.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdepen-
dence theory. New York: Springer.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York:
Crown.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity: Under-
standing second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner
contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158).
London: Pearson.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, N., Dina, A., Joaquin, A., Mates, A., & Schumann, J. (2010). The interactional
instinct. New York: Oxford University Press.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9),
954–969.
McCafferty, S., Jacobs, G., & DaSilva Iddings, A. (2006). Cooperative learning and
second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murphey, T. (1993). Why don’t teachers learn what learners learn? Taking the
guesswork out with action logging. English Teaching Forum, 31, 16–10.
Murphey, T. (1998). Friends and classroom identity formation. IATEFL Issues, 145,
16–17.
Murphey T. (1999). Publishing students’ language learning histories: For them,
their peers, and their teachers. Between the Keys (the newsletter of the Materials
Writers SIG of JALT), 7(2), 8–11, 14.
Murphey, T. (2001). Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teacher
Research, 5(2), 128–155.
Murphey, T. (2010). Creating languaging agencing. The Language Teacher, 34(4),
8–11.
Murphey, T., & Arao, H. (2001). Changing reported beliefs through near peer role
modeling. TESL-EJ, 5(3), 1–15. Retrieved 21 November 2011 from http://tesl-ej.
org/ej19/a1.html
238 Group Dynamics
Murphey, T., & Falout, J. (in press). Emerging individual differences through
time in language classrooms. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied
linguistics: Language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nelson, T. (2009). Group work projects: Participant perspectives from a teacher edu-
cation program in Seoul, Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Macquarie
University, Sydney.
Nelson, T., & Murphey, T. (2011). Agencing and belonging in the collaborative
village: Case studies from two Asian contexts. Anglistik, 22(1), 81–100.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language

classroom. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning.
Harlow: Longman.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community.
Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367.
Porges, S. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions,
attachment, communication, and self regulation. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Quinn, J. (2010). Learning communities and imagined social capital: Learning to
belong. New York: Continuum.
Sperry, R. W. (1982). Some effects of disconnecting the cerebral hemispheres.
Science, 217, 1223–1226.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original
work published in 1932.)
Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.),
The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL
Quarterly, 22(4), 575–592.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
16
Conclusion: Final Remarks

Introduction
In compiling this book we have strongly encouraged each author

to bring their own perspectives on their respective topic. Our aim
is to include a range of theoretical perspectives and methodological
approaches that provide an up-to-date and comprehensive picture of
thinking about language learning psychology. There are many different
ways of understanding and approaching the psychology of the language
learning experience and clearly not all questions can be answered using
the same approach. However, despite the variety and individuality of
the different chapters, some common themes emerge, which are sug-
gestive of the direction in which the field as a whole is moving. In this
final chapter, we would like to bring together some of these themes and
consider possible future developments in the field.
Looking at interconnections
While encouraging individuality and a diversity of approaches in the

writing of each chapter, we were also anxious not to convey the impres-
sion that we view psychology in terms of isolated, discrete constructs.
One of the first challenges we faced was striking the balance between
a need to organize the chapters logically and a wish to highlight the
ways in which the various constructs are interlinked. Indeed, one of our
principal objectives with this book is to bring together a range of con-
cepts that have often been discussed separately in order to explore their
commonality. Several of the contributors discuss the ways in which the
various constructs considered in the book are in fact interdependent and
function together in combination. For example, Cohen’s Chapter 10 on
239
240 Conclusion
strategies refers to the “close-knit intersection of styles, strategies, and

motivation” in respect to specific L2 tasks. He emphasizes that research
can benefit from examining the relations between variables rather than
considering each in isolation, and he shows how strategy use only
makes sense when considered in combination with other psychological
constructs.
Ryan and Mercer (Chapter 6) note that in the past there has been a
strong tendency for researchers to isolate and analyse discrete variables.

With respect to the concept of mindsets, they argue that it may be more
appropriate to consider how mindsets connect with aspects of moti-
vation such as self-efficacy, goal setting, attributions and other specific
beliefs. They suggest that mindsets might be more appropriately exam-
ined in their entirety rather than by analysing the various component
parts in a piecemeal fashion (Robins & Pals, 2002). Similarly, Ushioda
(Chapter 5) considers how motivation relates to a person’s entire com-
plex system of motivation, behaviours, interactions, and experiences.
She invokes a dynamic systems perspective on motivational processes
which renders the notion of discrete, individual variables meaningless.
As she explains, “processes of motivation, cognition and emotion and
their constituent components interact with one another and the devel-
oping context, thereby changing and causing change in non-linear and
unpredictable ways, as the system as a whole restructures, adapts and
evolves.”
Related to this, some of the chapters remind us of the dangers
of conceptions of causality. When considering affect, MacIntyre and
Gregersen (Chapter 8) stress that the interrelations between psycho-
logical constructs are interesting, but there is a need to reject simple
cause-and-effect models. Instead they consider how variables interact
in context-dependent, non-linear ways. In his discussion of personal-
ity, Dewaele (Chapter 4) concludes in a similar vein; “no single factor
is a fool-proof predictor of success in SLA and we need to map out the
myriad of – often unquantifiable – factors that are interlocked.”
Interest in looking at combinations of constructs mirrors concerns
that have been expressed elsewhere recently. For example, Dörnyei
(2010) points to some of the advantages of researching conglomerates of
factors in combination rather than looking at them in isolation. In par-
ticular, he suggests taking a tripartite view which looks at combinations
of cognitive, affective, and motivational factors. In sum, these chapters
add to this call for research to focus on combinations of psychologi-
cal factors in a way that captures the complexity of these interlocking
systems.
Looking at context
Another dimension highlighted by several of the contributors is a recog-

nition of how psychological constructs interact with and are mediated
by contexts, the experiences of an individual, and the nature of the
interactions an individual is involved in. Many of the contributors
express a need to consider the dialectical relationship between individ-
uals and their various personal and social contexts. For example, Morita

(Chapter 3) reports on a study which focuses on the situated nature of a
learner’s identity and the way in which this is constructed through class-
room interactions and socialization processes. She argues in favour of a
model of identities as situated, which views them not as pre-determined
but as dynamically constructed.
Several of the chapters also expand the notion of context. In the past
there has been a danger in some studies of considering context as a
fixed, static, unidimensional entity (Funder, 2001). However, some of
the chapters indicate a growing recognition of the multidimensional
and dynamic nature of contexts. For instance, in her discussion of self-
concept, Mercer (Chapter 2) extends understandings of ‘situatedness’
to include a consideration of multiple levels of context, interpersonal
interactions and temporal dimensions. As a part of situatedness, she
also includes intra-personal considerations of self in relation to other
aspects of the individual’s psychology, cognition, and the physical self.
Similarly, Ushioda (Chapter 5) also emphasizes the social, physical, and
temporal nature of contexts and the need to consider their multidimen-
sional nature when considering learners’ motivation. The links between
temporal social contexts are discussed by Murphey et al. (Chapter 15),
who highlight the importance of learners’ interpretations of their own
pasts and visions of their futures in shaping their approaches to working
and cooperating with others as part of a learning group. They remind us
that a considerable amount of human activity, and especially language
learning activity, takes place in groups, and we can only truly under-
stand people’s current interactions with other group members when
we understand how they interpret previous experiences and envisage
themselves in the future. The interconnected nature of the relation-
ships between the individual and the learning group is a point further
reinforced by Woodrow (Chapter 13), who observes that individual
goal orientations can be influenced and shaped by wider classroom or
school goals.
A related concept evident in the chapters is the domain-specificity of
constructs that may have different characteristics in different domains,
242 Conclusion
for example, anxiety (MacIntyre & Gregersen, Chapter 8) or self-concept

(Mercer, Chapter 2). In other words, anxiety for foreign language learn-
ing is different from anxiety for maths; and anxiety for speaking differs
from that for writing. This suggests that research is also needed that
examines the possible effects of specific parameters such as the unique
character of particular languages or differences across different skill
domains within a language.
In general, there is strong consensus across all the chapters that

psychological constructs cannot meaningfully be abstracted from their
multiple contexts, and that all research needs to attend to their situated
nature. In the future, research in the field could aim for a greater under-
standing of the multidimensional nature of contexts, and the ways in
which contexts interrelate with individuals, groups, and communities
of learners.
Looking at dynamics
Several contributors also note a growing interest in the dynamic nature

of psychological constructs and the way in which these can vary
across contexts and also time. As such, some of the chapters adopt
more process-oriented perspectives which concentrate on dynamics
and change. For example, MacIntyre and Gregersen (Chapter 8) take a
process-oriented view of anxiety and show how this fluctuates through
highs and lows over different timescales. They suggest that there is a
need for research methods that are especially suited to studying ongo-
ing processes as they change over time. Yashima (Chapter 9) also notes
in her consideration of willingness to communicate (WTC) that more
recent studies have begun to focus on the situational and dynamic
aspects of the construct as well as the moment-to-moment dynamics
of WTC. This suggests that the field of language learning psychology
would benefit from investigations into any changes over time and place
in order to better appreciate the variability of constructs.
Looking at complexity
Essentially, all of the strands emerging from the chapters appear to indi-
cate a development towards complexity perspectives. The key themes
that arise, involving combinations of variables, the situated nature of
constructs, and their dynamic nature, are all themes found in com-
plexity theories. As such, it may be possible to conceive of language
learning psychology as representing a complex dynamic system, an
approach consistent with developments elsewhere in applied linguistics
(Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Ushioda, in Chapter 5, defines

this as being “an evolving system containing multiple interconnected
components, whose adaptive behaviour emerges organically from the
interactions of these components.”
Dörnyei (2009, p. 194) argues that learner individual differences “are
not stable but show salient temporal and situational variation, and are
not monolithic but are complex constellations made up of different
parts that interact with each other and the environment synchronically

and diachronically.” He concludes that the traditional view of individ-
ual differences research needs to move beyond the examination of the
impact of any one variable to a consideration of “the way by which the
complex system of all the relevant factors works together.” He argues
that research into individual differences may best be reframed from a
dynamic systems perspective. The chapters in this book certainly sup-
port this view and we would suggest that future research in the field of
language learning psychology could profit from exploring the potential
of complexity perspectives.
Looking at methodological diversity
One aspect of this book that clearly reveals the vitality of the field is
the range of methodological approaches presented. It is apparent that
the challenges of addressing some of the more recent theoretical issues
are encouraging a more creative approach to research, which entails
a greater openness to innovative research design and methods. The
chapters in this book report on questionnaires and quantitative anal-
yses, qualitative interviews, narrative studies, case studies, and mixed
methods, as well as some lesser known approaches such as Q method-
ology (Pemberton & Cooker, Chapter 14) or the idiodynamic method
(MacIntyre & Gregersen, Chapter 8). As we stated at the outset, we feel
that there is no single way to understand language learning psychology
or to ask questions about it. While psychology research has traditionally
been dominated by quantitative studies, it is evident from these chapters
that there are now more studies that consider the situated nature of con-
structs, and these have generated a wave of more qualitatively oriented
studies. Indeed, increased sensitivity to context has also had an impact
on quantitative studies. For example, when constructing questionnaires,
both Hsieh (Chapter 7) and Griffiths (Chapter 11) discuss the need to
adapt such research tools in ways that are sensitive to particular learners
and contexts.
With respect to the emerging complexity perspectives in the field,
research will need to engage with a variety of different methods,
244 Conclusion
as one method alone is unlikely to yield sufficiently complex and

comprehensive answers. MacIntyre and Gregersen (Chapter 8) sug-
gest that it would be helpful to combine qualitative and quantitative
approaches in mixed method studies in investigating affect. As Yashima
(Chapter 9) explains in respect to research on WTC, as research moves
away from the quantitative origins of the educational psychology field,
there will be a need for considerable methodological innovation and
diversification.

As editors we have been guided by our belief that, in order to meet
the challenges posed by increasingly complex perspectives on psy-
chology, researchers will need to be creative in developing a range of
methodologies; this echoes Dörnyei’s (2007, p. 277) observation that
“maintaining an open and flexible frame of mind and remaining as
free as possible of paradigmatic dogmas” is becoming a prerequisite for
good research. Of course, this is easier said than done. Few researchers
are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to develop the neces-
sary expertise in a wide range of research techniques. For this reason, as
others have commented (MacIntyre, Noels, & Moore, 2010), we envis-
age a future research environment characterized by collaboration, as
researchers pool resources in order to apply the most appropriate tools
to their immediate research interests.
Looking at future directions for research
Considering the issues raised in the individual chapters, we would like

to offer some suggestions of possible directions for the field in the com-
ing years. In terms of the focus of research, we envisage a growth in
studies exploring the complexity of language learning psychology, for
example, by looking at the interrelations between different dimensions
of psychology and considering the potential dynamics of these relation-
ships. The field would also benefit from further studies exploring the
situated nature of language learner psychology by extending notions of
situatedness and engaging with the multidimensionality of contexts and
domains. In line with such contextualized understandings, we also feel
that research investigating collective psychologies beyond the individ-
ual, for example, in terms of relationships, groups, and communities of
practice, will have much to contribute to broadening our understand-
ings of relationships between individuals and others and the role of
group psychologies.
As has been discussed above, in order to meet the empirical chal-
lenges of investigating this complexity, situatedness and dynamism,
researchers will need to develop a broad range of research method-

ologies and be receptive to methodological and paradigmatic diversity.
Finally, we would also seek to encourage more classroom-based research
with a view to enhancing pedagogical practice and indeed hope that all
research in the field will explicitly consider the practical relevance of
their findings.
Looking at pedagogy

One of our concerns has been to reflect on the implications of the
research and theoretical models provided in the chapters for language
teaching. As an applied discipline, applied linguists must consider the
relevance of their findings for practice. Indeed, Griffiths (Chapter 11)
poses a question in respect to styles as to how an understanding of a
psychological construct can best be applied to enhance learning and
teaching. We would argue that this is a key question that all researchers
must ask. MacIntyre and Gregersen (Chapter 8) make an important
point when they draw attention to the tendency in much of the aca-
demic literature to make general, well-meaning suggestions for teaching
that are not translated into action. In this final section, we conclude
with what may be the most important issue of all: how to convert the
theories and research into action.
One framework that we feel offers great potential for incorporating
psychological insights into pedagogical practice is the theory of medi-
ation or mediating learning experiences (MLE) proposed by Reuven
Feuerstein (Feuerstein, Klein, & Tannenbaum, 1991; Williams & Bur-
den, 1999). One of the basic tenets of his theory is a fundamental belief
that anyone, of any age, can become a fully effective learner. If we, as
teachers, do not begin with such a belief about the plasticity of the
human mind, we will set limits on our expectations of our learners.
Another key dimension of Feuerstein’s approach is that, like Vygotsky
and Bruner, he believes that an individual’s learning is shaped by inter-
actions with other significant people in their surroundings. He refers
to these as ‘mediators’ and the experiences they provide as ‘mediated
learning experiences.’
Feuerstein’s theory of mediation is essentially concerned with empow-
ering learners with the skills they need to tackle problems and function
effectively and independently as learners. He identifies a number of dif-
ferent ways in which a teacher or other adult can mediate. The first three
are all concerned with significance of the learning task. The teacher
needs to help learners to be aware of why they are carrying out the
246 Conclusion
task, how it will help them beyond the immediate time and place, and
exactly what needs to be done. In this way, learners approach tasks in a
focused and self-directed way. Teachers can further enhance the signifi-
cance of the learning experience if they encourage and develop in their
learners: a sense of competence; an ability to control and regulate their
own learning, thinking and actions (see also Anderson, Chapter 12);
goal setting skills; an internal need to respond to challenge; and, an abil-
ity to recognize and assess change in themselves. Finally, teachers need

to also encourage cooperation, respect for individuality of learners, and
a sense of belonging to a community.
We feel that this framework offers a sound basis for pedagogical prac-
tice that reflects many of the insights offered in the chapters in respect
to learner psychology. To conclude, we would now like to offer fur-
ther concrete suggestions and advice for practitioners. While each of the
contributors provides implications specific to their particular construct,
there is considerable overlap, and the resulting list is a compilation of
recommendations given by the different authors. Rather than seeing
this as a pedagogical recipe list, we hope that teachers will consider the
relevance of these for their own learning situations.
• Try to create a positive emotional environment, a sense of security

and belonging to a community, with positive group dynamics and
interactions, where learners assume a central role, collaborate, take
responsibility, and are respected as individuals.
• Help learners develop a positive, yet realistic, self-concept and pos-
itive self-efficacy beliefs, in other words, feelings of competence in
respect to tasks and language learning in general.
• Encourage a sense that through hard work and practice anyone can
improve their abilities in a foreign language.
• Foster internal feelings of control; help learners to see success as
due to factors over which they have control, and help them to take
control.
• Teach learners strategies for developing their language skills indepen-
dently by integrating strategy instruction with language instruction.
• Recognize that individuals are different. They will have different per-
sonalities and also use different learning styles, and teachers need to
allow them to use a style that suits their individual preferences, while
retaining some style flexibility.
• Help learners to develop metacognitive awareness. Foster the ability
in learners to plan, to set their own targets for improvement, to assess
their own learning, and reflect on their learning.
• Support learners in setting their own language learning goals, engage

them in negotiating group goals, and foster mastery goal orienta-
tions, that is, the wish to increase knowledge or skill, rather than
to look better than classmates.
As Pemberton and Cooker aptly point out in Chapter 14, all of these
points need to become a part of the classroom and whole-school culture.
Thus, the school principal is a key figure in facilitating the development

of an educational culture that allows for and promotes such approaches
to learning.
Final note
As we outlined in Chapter 1, we share a belief that the most effective

way to improve pedagogy is through an understanding of the thoughts,
motives, and emotions of learners. We hope that this book has inspired
you to engage with this field and/or incorporate psychological insights
into your teaching practice.
References
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative
and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). The relationship between language aptitude and language
learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspec-
tive. In E. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum companion to second language acquisition
(pp. 247–267). London: Continuum.
Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). Mediated learning
experience: Theoretical, psychological and learning implications. London: Freund.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 197–221.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Moore, B. (2010). Perspectives on motivation in
second language acquisition: Lessons from the Ryoanji garden. In M. T. Prior
et al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum
(pp. 1–9). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Robins, R., & Pals, J. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Impli-
cations for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self
and Identity, 1(4), 313–336.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1999). Reuven Feuerstein: Releasing unlimited
learning potential. In D. J. Mendelsohn (Ed.), Expanding our vision: Insights for
language teachers (pp. 93–109). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Glossary
Academic discourse socialization: a process by which newcomers to a particular

academic community become increasingly competent in the respective ways of
knowing, speaking, and writing as they participate in various practices of the
specific academic community.
Affective variables: a term covering the non-cognitive factors that may influ-
ence second language acquisition, which are connected to emotions and feelings
(these may include boredom, anxiety, shyness, embarrassment, or low self-
esteem). The dividing line between cognitive and affective variables is not sharp
and in practice the two are intertwined.
Affordances: the perceived resources and opportunities for learning in contexts
with which the learner can interact and engage.
Agency: the capacity to act within the world, influenced by what one perceives
as being available in one’s surroundings.
Ambivert: an individual exhibiting tendencies of both extraverts and introverts.
An ambivert may simultaneously enjoy social interaction while valuing time
spent alone.
Anxiety: a feeling of nervousness and unease that can have physical manifesta-
tions, such as shortness of breath or increased heart rate.
Attributional feedback: providing learners with information about the causes or
reasons for successes and failures.
Attributions: a learner’s explanations of the reasons for particular events, such
as perceived success and failure experiences.
Belongingness: a fundamental psychological need to feel like a valued member
of a social group.
Big Five personality dimensions: five broad personality dimensions that have
been widely used to describe human personality: extraversion-introversion;
neuroticism; openness to experience; conscientiousness; agreeableness.
Cognitive style: refers to individual preferences in how individuals perceive,
remember and organize information.
Collaborative agency: the capacity of pairs or groups to act meaningfully and
effectively in the world.
Community of practice: a set of relations among a group of people sus-
tained by their mutual engagement in specific practices or activities in a specific
domain. A community of practice is also defined by ongoing negotiations
248
Glossary 249
among its members with varied degrees of expertise (e.g., newcomers,

old-timers).
Complex dynamic system or dynamic systems theory (DST): an evolving sys-
tem containing multiple interconnected components, whose adaptive behaviour
emerges organically from the interactions of these components.
Conscientiousness: one of the superordinate traits in the ‘Big Five’ personal-
ity model, with conscientious individuals tending to be both hard-working and
reliable.

Consciousness: the sensations, perceptions, ideas, attitudes, and feelings that an
individual is aware of at a given time.
Controllability: refers to the extent to which an individual feels the cause of the
outcome can be controlled or not.
Domain: represents a field or area. A specific level of measurement is not implied
as it can be as specific as a language skill area or as broad as a subject level.
Dynamic systems theory: (see complex dynamic systems).
Embodied cognition: cognitions which are triggered or stimulated by, or co-
occur with, body movement, gestures, routines, and so on.
Emotional contagion: the contagious nature of emotions, based on the idea that
emotions can spread through social interaction.
Emotional intelligence: an ability to recognize the meaning of emotions and
their relationships, and an ability to reason and problem-solve on the basis
of them. Emotional intelligence is involved in the capacity to perceive emo-
tions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, understand the information of those
emotions, and manage them.
Entity theory: a belief that certain aspects of the human condition, such as
intelligence or ability, are fixed within the individual and cannot be changed
or developed.
Extended cognition: cognition that may be created, stimulated, or aided by
elements external to the individual.
Extraversion-introversion: one of the ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions; it is
largely concerned with the extent to which individuals derive satisfaction from
activities inside or outside the self. Extraverts tend to be more outgoing, whereas
introverts often appear more reflective.
Extrinsic motivation: the kind of motivation where one engages in an activity
as a means to some other outcome or reward.
Extrovert: an alternative spelling of ‘extravert.’ In the psychology literature
‘extravert’ and its variants are usually preferred.
Foreign language (classroom) anxiety: the anxiety experienced when learning
or using a foreign language: a term that encompasses the feelings of worry and
negative, fear-related emotions associated with learning or using a language that
is not an individual’s mother tongue. (See also anxiety.)
250 Glossary
Frame of reference: set of beliefs and perceptions in a context that an individual

uses to interpret or think about a construct.
Group dynamics: the interrelations between individuals within groups and how
these interrelations affect the formation, performance, and dissolution of these
groups.
Ideal L2 self: the L2-specific facet of one’s ideal self, that is the possible future
self one desires to become as a second language user.
Identity: individuals’ sense of who they are in relation to a particular social con-

text or community of practice. Since identity is constructed interactionally across
time and space, it can be multiple and fluid.
Identity negotiation: individuals’ attempts to construct or change their roles,
positions, or sense of self within a particular social context or community of
practice.
Imagined communities: a term that, within the field of second language edu-
cation, is used to describe how learners aspire to belong to or participate
in certain communities, which may exist entirely in the imagination of the
learner.
Imitative learning: the natural capacity to imitate what others are doing and to
learn behaviours through doing so.
Incremental theory: a belief that aspects of the human condition, such as
intelligence, can be developed by the individual through focused effort or
practice.
Instrumental orientation: reasons for learning the L2 pertaining to the potential
pragmatic benefits and value of being proficient in the language.
Integrativeness: refers to a positive interpersonal/affective disposition towards
an L2 group and the desire to interact with members of that community. It also
includes the desire to identify with that community.
Intrinsic motivation: the kind of motivation where one engages in an activity
because it is inherently interesting, enjoyable or personally rewarding.
Investment: the degree to which an individual is prepared to ‘invest’ time,
energy and resources into learning a foreign language in the expectation of
gaining some ‘return’ in the form of social capital.
L2 self-confidence: the amount of confidence an individual perceives
him/herself as having when using the L2. Self-confidence can be either a
short-term ‘state’ or a more enduring ‘trait.’
Language learner strategies: thoughts and actions consciously chosen and
operationalized by language learners to assist them in carrying out a range of
tasks from the onset of learning to the most advanced levels of target-language
performance.
Lay theories: the ‘implicit’ or ‘folk’ beliefs and ideas that are used to inform the
decisions people make in their everyday lives.
Glossary 251
Learned helplessness: a state in which learners, through repeated past experi-

ence, have come to believe that they are incapable of accomplishing tasks and
that they have little control in affecting the outcome. This feeling often leads to
feelings of hopelessness and passivity.
Learner autonomy: a readiness to take control of one’s own learning, which
involves the ability to act independently and in cooperation with others in the
service of one’s own learning purposes.
Learning styles: individual preferences and habits regarding learning and

cognition.
Legitimacy: status that allows newcomers and other members access to commu-
nity resources and opportunities for learning or active participation in commu-
nity practices. Individuals may be granted different degrees of legitimacy due to
social relations of power.
Locus of causality: refers to the extent to which the individual feels that a certain
outcome is due to internal or external causes.
Mastery goal orientation: (also task goal orientation) this refers to a reason for
learning informed by a desire to develop competence in the learning area and
reflects an intrinsic interest in the subject and in learning.
Metacognition: awareness of one’s cognitive processes, also referred to as
thinking about one’s thinking
Motivational cognitions: beliefs, goals, self-perceptions, and thinking patterns
that shape engagement in an activity.
Native language linguistic coding difficulties: the difficulties a native speaker
of a language experiences in using the language to code information.
Near peer role modelling: role modelling of people similar to ourselves in some
way, such as age or ethnicity. It is usually considered psychologically easier than
modelling people who are perceived as being dissimilar.
Neuroticism-emotional stability: one of the ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions,
based around the individual’s tendencies to experience negative emotions, such
as anger or anxiety.
Non-verbal cues: information gained from the context and manner in which
an interaction between people takes place that is not based on actual language
used, for example, vocal inflections, the pace and volume of speech, gestures,
mannerisms, tone of voice, body positioning, and movement.
Ought-to L2 self: the L2-specific facet of one’s ought-to self, that is the possible
future self one feels one ought to become to meet others’ expectations and avoid
potentially negative consequences.
Perceived competence: individuals’ perceptions of their ability to do something
or achieve a specific goal.
Perfectionism: a belief or tendency to want to be perfect. With respect to lan-
guage learning, perfectionist students would have an implausibly strong desire to
speak flawlessly, with no grammatical or pronunciation errors.
252 Glossary
Performance goals: an orientation to engage in tasks to demonstrate one’s

competence or ability in relation to others.
Personality: a broad concept which is usually defined in terms of an individual’s
personal, emotional, and/or behavioural traits.
Person-in-context relational view: the view that in order to more fully under-
stand a person (or what they say), we need to understand the context (where,
when, with whom, etc.) in which the person is situated.

Positionality: positions that individuals occupy or roles that they play in a
particular social context or community of practice. This construct is often
used interchangeably with related constructs such as roles, membership, and
positioning.
Positive psychology: a field of psychology devoted to understanding posi-

tive experiences including personal well-being, contentment, and satisfaction
in the past; hope and optimism for the future; and flow and happiness in the
present.
Possible selves: future-projected views of the self that can involve both desirable
and undesirable images and may induce behaviour directed respectively towards
or away from these images.
Present community of imagination (PCOI): the people and artefacts around

you at any time and place which contribute to/mediate (if you are open to it)
your ability to imagine and think.
Remembering versus experiencing selves: the ‘remembering self’ draws con-
clusions about the personal implications of events some time after the event is
over. The ‘experiencing self’ takes into account or monitors reactions to events as
they happen.
Risk-taking: a lower-order personality trait linked to tendencies to engage in or
avoid behaviour that may have possibly dangerous or harmful consequences.
Self-concept: a person’s beliefs about themselves in a specific domain including
cognitive and affective dimensions.
Self-determination theory: this motivation theory identifies two main orienta-
tions: an intrinsic orientation driven by an internal reason for engaging in an
activity and an extrinsic orientation driven by an external reason.
Self-directed learning: learning that is planned, carried out and evaluated under
the learner’s own control, with or without help from others.
Self-efficacy: an individual’s perception of or belief about his/her capabilities to
complete a specific task successfully.
Self-esteem: a person’s global sense of worth.
Self-regulation: the process by which the learner activates learning processes
and regulates their own learning such as setting goals, attending to instruction,
using memory strategies, using resources, managing time, and seeking assistance
as needed.
Glossary 253
Social turn: the general SLA research community’s shift (following other social
sciences) from research focusing on individuals in isolation to one that looks at
individuals in context and within groups as well as how knowledge and skills are
co-constructed through socialization processes.
Sociocognitive: an approach to psychology that attempts to integrate both
cognitive and sociocultural factors.
Sociocultural theory (SCT): a theory concerned with how individual minds
develop in social groups and internalize the tools and practices afforded by their

environment through activities.
Strategies: (see language learner strategies).
Task goal orientation: (see mastery goal orientation).
Tolerance/intolerance of ambiguity: a lower-order personality trait linked to
perception and dealing with how an individual responds to and deals with
ambiguous stimuli.
Willingness to communicate: the readiness to initiate communication, espe-
cially speaking, when free to do so.
Some useful research terms
The following section contains many of the technical research terms found in this
book. It is in no way intended to represent a comprehensive or definitive inven-
tory, but is rather meant as a helpful, supplementary resource. The whole area
of research methods and techniques can be highly controversial, with interpre-
tations and definitions of specific terms varying greatly. We have endeavoured to
be as neutral and uncontroversial as possible in the definitions we provide here.
Attitude/motivation test battery (AMTB): a well-established questionnaire
developed by Gardner (1985), which has been widely used in L2 motivation
research.
Bias: statistics are said to be biased when they systematically fail to measure a
given parameter. Individual errors caused by chance are inevitable and should be
cancelled out across a large enough sample; errors caused by bias will not.
Case studies: case-study research tends to focus on generating rich, highly
detailed descriptive accounts. Cases may be individuals or contexts or groups
of individuals. Such research is often, although not exclusively, qualitative and
longitudinal.
Correlational analysis: statistical analysis that examines the relationship
between one variable and another. This is usually reported according to the
strength of the relationship from +1 to –1 and supported by a level of sig-
nificance (usually p = <.05). The closer to +/–1 the coefficient is the stronger
the relationship, with 0 representing no relationship between the two variables
analysed.
254 Glossary
Covariance: tells us how much two variables change together. (See also variance
and structural equation modelling.)
Cross-sectional research: this is research that utilizes a one-off data collection
technique such as a questionnaire, thus providing a snapshot of responses to
questions at a given moment in time.
Dependent variable: this is the target variable, the variable that ‘depends’ on
other factors. Experiments are usually designed to measure the relationships
between variables the researcher can control, independent variables, and the

effect they have on the dependent variable. (See also independent variable.)
Ethnography (or ethnographic approach): a research methodology that
aims for a holistic understanding of a specific sociocultural context or
group. Ethnographic research is normally conducted over an extended period
of time and often uses observations and interviews as its primary data collection
methods.
Factor analysis: is a statistical procedure used to reduce the number of variables
submitted to the initial analysis to a few essential core factors.
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale: a 33-item Likert-scale instrument
developed by Horwitz et al. (1986) that has been widely used to research foreign
language anxiety.
Grounded theory: an approach to qualitative research that allows theories to
emerge from an analysis of data, rather than using data to confirm or refute
hypotheses.
Independent variable: this is a variable that is not changed by other variables
measured by a research instrument. For example, if factors contributing to test
performance were being investigated, then actual test performance would be the
dependent variable and factors contributing to that performance, such as age and
gender, would be the independent variables.
Mixed-method study (or research): research involving both qualitative and
quantitative data, often using combinations of different data sources and forms
of analyses.
Myers-Briggs type indicator: probably the most widely employed personality
test. This instrument indicates personality type across four implicit dichotomies:
Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling and, Judging-
Perceiving. Personality type is indicated through the various permutations of
preferences allowed by the test.
Normal distribution: many statistical techniques assume that the distribution
of scores obtained for a given variable is normal. By normal, it is meant that
the highest frequency of scores occur around the midpoint with higher and
lower scores occurring less frequently. A simple visual representation of normal
distribution is the Bell Curve.
Psychometric properties: these tell us how accurately measurement instru-
ments, such as questionnaires, tests, and personality assessments, measure the
construct they are intended to measure.
Glossary 255
Q methodology: a specific research methodology that has its own precise proce-
dure combining qualitative and quantitative elements based on factor analysis.
It is used to reduce the number of overall viewpoints in a systematic way.
Random assignment: is used in experimental design to ensure that any differ-
ences between groups examined are not systematic but simply due to chance.
Participants may be assigned to experiment groups through the use of simple
procedures such as tossing a coin or the drawing of lots.
Rasch Model: this is a mathematical model which determines the relationships

between test-takers’ ability and difficulty in test items.
Stimulated recall interviews: post-event interviews where participants are pro-
vided with a stimulus (typically a recording of the event) as a focus for their
retrospective reflections.
Structural equation modelling (SEM): a powerful analytical technique that is
used to test hypothesized relationships among multiple constructs and vari-
ables by examining variance and covariance among the observed variables. Major
applications of structural equation modelling include causal modelling and path
analyses as well as confirmatory factor analyses.
Triangulation: using a variety of data-gathering techniques, research methods
and analytical approaches and/or sources, typically a combination of quantita-
tive and qualitative measures, to increase confidence in the interpretation of the
results of the research.
Variance: tells us to what extent values in a dataset differ from the mean. The
most common expression of variance reported in research is standard deviation.
(See also variance.)
Verbal report: consists of three kinds of data collection approaches: think-
aloud, self-observation, and self-report. Think-aloud is characterized by the
stream-of-consciousness disclosure of thought processes while the information
is being attended to. Self-observation entails the inspection of specific language
behaviour, either introspectively (i.e., within 20 seconds of the mental event) or
retrospectively.
Author Index
Aida, Y., 104 Brooks-Carson, A., 141

Al-Baharna, S., 92, 96 Brown, A. L., 169

Alexander, P. A., 209 Burden, R. L., 3–4, 62, 68, 78, 90,
Allen, J., 193 92–3, 96, 158, 173, 245
Ames, C., 188, 193 Burgoon, J. K., 120
Anderman, E., 193, 199 Burnette, J., 226
Anderson, N. J., 169–71, 175 Burns, C., 129
Andrew, G., 94 Bybee, D., 64
Arao, H., 222 Bygate, M., 142
Archer, J., 188, 193 Byrne, J. L., 60
Arnold, J., 48
Aronon, J., 77
Cacioppo, J., 225
Astika, G. G., 46
Caffarella, R. S., 205
Atkinson, D., 222, 232–3
Cameron, L., 66, 243
Au, S. Y., 191
Canagarajah, A. S., 29, 31
Candlin, C. N., 226
Bailey, P., 104, 106, 152, 159, 162
Candy, P. C., 205, 209
Baird, G., 76
Cao, Y., 124–5, 132
Baker, L., 14, 110, 122–3
Carlston, D., 225
Baker, S. C., 169
Carrell, P. L., 46
Bandura, A., 11, 49, 90, 207
Carter, B., 66
Barcelos, A. M. F., 15, 78, 80
Bardovi-Harlig, K., 147 Castro, O., 106
Barnhardt, S., 171 Cervatiuc, A., 28–9
Barron, K. E., 196 Chamot, A. U., 141, 171
Baumeister, R. F., 223–4 Chan, B., 120
Baumgartner, L. M., 205 Chang-Schneider, C., 15
Beebe, L. M., 48 Chapelle, C., 158
Benson, P., 80, 205, 207, 209 Charmaz, K., 17, 81
Beyer, S., 93 Charos, C., 121, 123
Biddle, S. J., 96 Chase, M. A., 96
Black, P., 215 Chastain, K., 104
Blackledge, A., 27 Chen, J., 76, 79
Blackwell, L. S., 75, 77 Chen, S. A., 68
Block, D., 11, 27, 221 Cheng, Y., 105, 107, 158,
Bond, K. A., 96, 113 Chi, J., 143, 156
Bong, M., 11 Chiu, C.-Y., 75
Bonham, L., 157 Chiu, S. Y., 197
Brinthaupt, T. M., 10 Choroszy, M., 96
Britt, M. A., 169 Cid, E., 189, 193
Brockett, R. G., 205, 215 Clément, R., 14, 43, 46, 60, 63, 67,
Brookfield, S. D., 205, 209 121–3, 126, 189, 191
256
Author Index 257
Cohen, A. D., 3, 137–8, 140–3, 147, Dupreyat, C., 76

153, 156, 165 Dweck, C. S., 74–80, 85, 93–4
Conrod, S., 123
Cooker, L., 208, 211 Eccles, J. S., 10
Cool, B., 96, 199 Efklides, A., 169
Coon, H. M., 13 Ehrlinger, J., 174
Cooper, J., 52, 93 Ehrman, M. E., 46–8, 103, 153, 157–8,
Cope, J., 50, 104, 156, 163 165, 222
Costa, P. T., 44–7, 176 El-Dinary, P. B., 171

Cotterall, S., 78, 172 Elkhafaifi, H., 104–5, 107
Coutinho, S., 169 Elliot, E. S., 76
Craven, R. G., 13 Ellis, G., 216
Crookes, G., 61, 190 Ellis, R., 58, 158, 216
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., 38 Elshout, J. J., 169
Curry, L., 155 Ely, C. M., 48, 104, 156, 165
Epstein, S., 111–12
Daley, C. E., 104, 106, 152 Erard, M., 139
Dam, L., 208 Ewald, J., 107
Damasio, A., 225
Dardenne, B., 169 Falout, J., 227–8, 230
DaSilva Iddings, A., 222 Feuerstein, R., 4, 77–8, 245
Day, E. M., 30 Feuerstein, R. S., 77
De Bot, K., 66 Feuerstein, S., 78
Debruyn, L., 46 Finkel, E. J., 224
Debus, R., 94 Fisher, L., 95
Deci, E. L., 64, 188, 191–2, Fiske, S. T., 91
205 Flavell, J. H., 169–70, 207
Deneault, B., 14 Fleming, N., 156, 165
Denissen, J. J., 10 Forsyth, D., 226
Depickere, A., 158 Frantzen, D., 107
Dewaele, J.-M., 3, 43, 45–51, 53, 79, Frederickson, N., 94
103–4 Fredrickson, B. L., 112–13
Diener, E., 113 Freiermuth, M., 131
Dina, A., 233 Fried, C., 77
Dinsmore, D. L., 209 Frieze, I., 95
Donovan, L. A., 14, 123 Fröhlich, M., 3, 45
Dörnyei, Z., 3–5, 14, 42–3, 52, 59–62, Fukada, Y., 225, 228, 232
65–7, 70, 79, 85, 120–1, 129, Fukuda, T., 228
137–9, 142–3, 151–3, 159, 172, Funder, D. C., 241
180, 190, 198–9, 222–3, 227, 240, Furnham, A., 43, 45, 49, 51, 106
243–4
Douglas, P., 96 Gabriel, N., 46
DuBois, D. L., 11 Gaies, S. J., 172
Duda, J., 193 Ganschow, L., 106, 111
Duff, P. A., 16, 27, 29 Gardner, R. C., 3, 50, 59–60, 62, 67,
Duncan, T. E., 97 94, 104–8, 113, 188–91, 194
Dunn, K., 153–5, 159, 165 Garrison, D. R., 205, 210
Dunn, R., 153–4, Garza, T. J., 105
Dunning, D., 173–5 Gialamas, V., 76
258 Author Index
Gibson, J. J., 50 Järvelä, S. 66

Ginsburg, H., 96 Järvenoja, H. 66
Goh, C. C. M., 174 Jessome, A., 129
Good, C., 77, Joaquin, A., 233
Grabe, W., 171 John, O. P., 42, 44, 207
Graham, S., 14, 78, 92, 95 Johnson, D. W., 222
Granena, G., 189 Johnson, K., 174
Green, J., 158 Johnson, R. T., 222
Gregersen, T., 51, 104–7 Jopling, D. A., 13

Gregorc, A., 154 Juraga, I., 52
Gremmo, M.-J., 204
Griffiths, C., 152, 158, 163 Kahneman, D., 112
Guilloteaux, M. J., 70 Kalaja, P., 78, 80
Guiora, A., 52 Kang, S., 50, 125, 131–2
Katchan, O., 46
Hall, H., 193 Kawai, Y., 163
Harackiewicz, J. M., 196 Keil, F. C., 79
Harklau, L., 29 Kelly, G. A., 75
Harrison, C., 215 Kemmelmeier, M., 13
Harter, S., 11, 13 Kinsella, K., 164
Hatfield, E., 225, 232 Kitayama, S., 13
Hawkins, M. R., 30 Knowles, M. S., 204, 210
He, A., 147 Kolb, D., 154–5
Heider, F., 91 Köller, O., 18
Heine, S. J., 79 Kozol, J., 225
Herron, C., 14, 49 Kraemer, R., 59
Hiemstra, R., 205 Kruger, J., 173–5
Higgins, E. T., 65 Kubota, R., 27
Holec, H., 204–5, 215–17 Kukla, A., 95
Holschuh, J. P., 96
Honey, P., 155 Lai, S., 197
Hong, Y.-Y., 75–6, 204, 212 Lam, W. S. E., 29–30, 38
Horwitz, E. K., 50–1, 78, 94–5, Lamb, M., 68
104–7, 172 Lamb, T., 215
Horwitz, M. B., 50, 104 Lambert, W. E., 59–60, 189
Housen, A., 46 Lantolf, J. P., 28, 221, 226
Hoyle, R. H., 64 Larkin, S., 169
Hruda, L. Z., 199 Larsen-Freeman, D., 66, 129, 243
Hsieh, P. P., 14, 50, 91 Lave, J., 26, 37, 223
Humbach, N., 106 Lawrence, G., 153
Leary, M. R., 223
Imai, Y., 226 Leaver, B., 157, 165
Inagaki, K., 79 Lee, C., 158, 215
Inzlicht, M., 77 Lee, N., 233
Ishihara, N., 147 Legatto, J. J., 108, 110, 119, 126,
129–30, 132
Jacobs, G., 222 Leggett, E. L., 76
Jacobs, S., 94 Leondari, A., 76
James, M. K., C., 93 Levy, S. R. 79
Author Index 259
Li Wei, 49 Miyake, A., 51

Lin, D., 27 Molden, D. C., 75
Linnenbrink, E. A., 199 Moore, B., 21, 244
Lipka, R. P., 10 Mori, Y., 78, 172
Little, D., 208, Morita, N., 27–9, 31–2, 131,
Lockhart, K. L., 79 Mumford, A., 155
Lor, W., 80 Murphey, T., 222–3, 225–8, 230, 232
Lories, G., 169 Murphy, M., 75, 79
Losada, M., 113 Myers, I., 46, 153, 158

Loughlin, S. M., 209
Lowie, W., 66 Naiman, N., 3, 45
Loyens, S. M., 207 Nakashima, N., 79
Lüdtke, O., 18 Nakkula, M., 96
Lukmani, Y. M., 59 Nardo, D., 51
Neisser, U., 11, 13
Macaro, E., 3, 143, 152 Nel, C., 153, 159, 163–4
MacIntyre, P. D., 14, 21, 43, 46, 50, 67, Nelson, L. J., 93, 223, 225–7
104–8, 110, 119, 121–4, 126, Nicholls, J. G., 93
129–30, 244 Nist, S. L., 96
Mackinnon, S., 67 Nix, M., 211
Maehr, M., 199 Noels, K. A., 14, 21, 43, 46, 63, 67,
Magda, J., 207 104, 121, 188, 191–3, 197–8, 244
Magid, M., 67 Norenzayan, A., 79
Maguire, M. H., 38 Norton, B., 26–9, 31, 39, 131, 225
Mariné, C., 76 Norton-Peirce, B., 27
Markus, H., 12–13, 64, 227 Ntoumanis, N., 96
Marsh, H. W., 10, 13–15, 18 Nunan, D., 159
Marshall, B., 215
Martin, A. J., 78 Ochs, E., 26
Masgoret, A.-M., 3, 59, 190–1 Ockey, G., 45, 47
Mates, A., 233 Olejnik, S., 96
Maun, I., 93 O’Malley, J. M., 171
McAuley, E., 97 Ommundsen, Y., 76, 78
McCafferty, S., 222 Onorato, R. S., 13
McClarity, K. L., 15 Onwuegbuzie, A., 104, 152
McCrae, R. R., 44–7 Osterman, K. F., 223–4
McCroskey, J. C., 120, 123–7 Oxford, R. L., 48, 61, 138–9, 141–3,
McDermott, R., 227 152–3, 156, 158, 163, 171, 190
McDonough, S., 4 Oyserman, D., 13, 64
McKay, S. L., 27–30
McQuillan, J., 96 Pae, T. I., 192
Mercer, S., 11–12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 78–80 Pajares, F., 11, 14, 49, 64, 76, 79
Merriam, S. B., 205, 209 Pals, J., 77, 240
Meyer, W. U., 94 Papi, M., 67
Midgley, C., 193–4, 196 Pappamihiel, N. E., 107
Miller, E. R., 26 Patrick, H., 199
Mills, C., 156, 165 Patton, J., 106
Mills, N., 14, 49, 156, 165 Pavlenko, A., 27–8, 46, 226
Misailidi, P., 169 Peck, V., 106
260 Author Index
Pelletier, L. G., 63, 191 Schallert, D. L., 14, 91, 97, 105
Peng, J.-E., 123–5 Schmidt, R., 61, 190
Pervin, L. A., 42, 44 Schumann, J., 60, 233
Petrides, K. V., 44, 51, 106 Scovel, T., 104
Philp, J., 124–5, 132 Sealey, A., 66
Pierrard, M., 46 Seligman, M., 113
Pinilla-Herrera, A., 147 Sellers, V. D., 105
Porges, S., 233 Seravalle, V., 49
Poulet, G., 93 Shearin, J., 61, 190

Powers, S., 96 Sherrill, M. R., 64
Price, G., 153–4 Shimizu, K., 14, 119, 191
Price, M. L., 104, 107 Siegal, M., 38
Prince, M. S., 46 Sieloff Magnan, S., 107
Prins, F. J., 169 Sinclair, B., 216
Skaalvik, E. M., 11, 13
Quinn, J., 224, 233 Skaalvik, S., 13
Skowronski, J. J., 169
Radnofsky, M., 107 Slevc, R., 51
Rai, S., 158, Smith, M., 193
Rapson, R., 225 Smith, R. C., 206
Rayner, S., 158 Snyder, W., 227
Regan, V., 46 Son, L. K., 169
Reid, J., 152–3, 155, 163, 165, 181 Sparks, R. L., 106, 111
Reiterer, S. M., 51 Sperry, R. W., 234
Rhodewalt, F., 76 Spielmann, G., 107
Richmond, V. P., 120, 124–7 Stavans, A., 53
Riding, R., 152, 158 Stenner, P., 210
Riis, J., 112 Stern, H. H., 3, 45
Rikers, R. M., 207 Stevenson, H. W., 92
Riley, P., 204 Stevick, E., 3
Riordan, C. A., 93 Stigler, J. W., 92
Robbins, J., 171 Stringer, D., 147
Robins, R., 77, 240 Swain, M., 119
Robinson, D., 46 Swann, W. B., 15
Rotter, J. B., 91
Rubin, J., 3, 49 Tabuse, M., 48
Russell, D., 97 Taguchi, T., 67
Ryan, R. M., 64, 93, 188, 191–3, 205 Tannenbaum, A. J., 245
Ryan, S., 67, 78–80, 125, 128, 131 Taylor, S. E., 91
Terrace, H. S., 169
Saito, Y., 105, 107 Terry, K., 64
Sakui, K., 172 Thirtle, H., 50
Salili, F., 197 Thomas, J. S., 93
Samimy, K. K., 48 Thompson, J. R., 147
Samuda, V., 142 Thorne, S. L., 221, 226
Sanchez, M. P., 104 Todesco, A., 3, 45
Sánchez-Alonso, S., 169 Toohey, K., 26–8, 30
Sanchez-Herrero, S. A., 104 Torpey, M., 208
Sarangi, S., 226 Tragant, E., 189
Author Index 261
Trautwein, U., 18 Wen, W. P., 126

Trebbi, T., 208 Wenden, A. L., 78, 172, 180
Tremblay, P. F., 62, 67, 190 Wenger, E., 26, 31, 37, 223–4, 226–7
Trzesniewski, K. H., 75 White, C., 78, 90, 92, 147
Tse, L., 96 White, R. N., 90
Turner, J. C., 13, 66 Whitesell, N. R., 13
Wiemer-Hastings, K., 169
Urdan, T., 193 Wiliam, D., 215
Ushioda, E., 16, 58–9, 61–2, 64, 66–8, Williams, M., 3–4, 62, 68, 78, 90,

70, 84, 142, 172, 198, 222, 232 92–4, 96, 158, 245
Willing, K., 155, 165
Valentine, J. C., 11 Wilson, R., 47
Vallerand, R. J., 63, 191 Witkin, H., 158
van Daele, S., 46 Witzig, L. E., 147
Van der Zee, K. I., 53 Wong, S. C., 27–30
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., 53 Woodrow, L. J., 14, 104, 123–5,
Vandergrift, L., 174 193, 197
Veenman, M. V. J., 169 Wurf, E., 12
Verhoeven, L., 47
Vermeer, A., 47
Yan, J., 107
Verspoor, M., 66
Yang, N.-D., 14, 172
Vogely, A. J., 105
Volet, S. E., 66 Yashima, T., 14, 119, 123–4, 126–8,
Vovides, Y., 169 131, 191
Vygotsky, L., 221–2, 232, 245 Young, D., 104–5, 111
Yzerbyt, V. Y., 169
Wakamoto, N., 46
Waters, P., 13 Zarrett, N. R., 10
Waterstone, B., 29 Zenuk-Nishide, L., 14, 119, 127, 191
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., 221 Zhang, D., 174–5
Watts, S., 210 Zhang, L. J., 175
Weaver, C., 124–5 Zhou, M., 163
Weaver, S. J., 138 Zimmerman, B. J., 207
Weiner, B., 90–2, 95–7 Zuengler, J., 26
Subject Index
ability, 62, 74–6, 78, 80–3, 91–8, cognitive processes, 2, 170, 172, 181,
139, 176 240

academic discourse socialization, cognitive style, 26, 152, 158
27, 29 cognitive theories of motivation, 61,
achievement, 49, 62, 76, 90, 91–2, 94, 63, 65
98, 159, 189 communication apprehension,
see also Language Achievement 114, 120
Attribution Scale (LAAS); need community of practice, 12, 27, 32,
for achievement 128, 132, 223–4, 226, 232, 244
affect, 21, 103, 108, 111, 112, 113, competence, 26–7, 29, 94, 121–4, 126,
128, 129, 146, 240, 244 130, 193, 246
affordances, 50, 55, 233 complex dynamic system, 61, 242
anxiety, 4, 14, 48, 103, 104–8, 110–11, see also Dynamic Systems Theory
113, 120, 121, 123–4, 194, 242 conscientiousness, 44, 47, 51
see also foreign Language consciousness, 57, 136–7
(Classroom) Anxiety; language controllability, 92, 100
anxiety; test anxiety culture, 13, 59, 94–5, 126, 197, 199
attention, 125, 137
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
dependent variable, 42
(AMTB), 67, 190, 194
domain, 11–12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 49, 60,
attributions, 4, 7, 14, 50, 63, 76, 77,
74, 77, 85, 147, 154
90–9, 129, 240
domain-specific, 11–12, 15, 49, 77,
attributional feedback, 94
241
attribution retraining, 93, 99
Dynamic Systems Theory, 129–30
autonomy, 3, 138, 169, 210, 211,
see also complex dynamic system
213–16
dynamism, 10, 12, 83–4, 131, 244
see also learner autonomy
beliefs, 3, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21, 49–50, 61, effort, 76–7, 91–8, 104, 189,
63, 69, 74, 75, 78–80, 83–5, 90, 194, 199
94, 97, 99, 164, 172, 246 embodied cognition, 222, 231
see also learner beliefs; self, emotional intelligence, 51, 106
self-beliefs English as a lingua franca, 194, 199
belonging, 8, 30, 223–4, 226, 231, 246 ethnicity, 13, 28, 37, 127, 197
biases, 108 ethnolinguistic vitality, 122
excitement, 45, 125
case study, 16, 30–1, 80, 143, 147, 243 expectations, 3, 54, 70, 76, 92, 94, 95,
causal dimensions, 91 98, 126, 183
code switching, 107 experiencing self, 112
cognition, 66, 111, 141, 173, 207, 222 see also remembering self; self
see also embodied cognition; extended cognition, 222, 231, 232
extended cognition external regulation, 191–2
262
Subject Index 263
feedback, 13, 18, 36, 69–70, 85, 145, introjected regulation, 191
174 investment, 27, 32, 38, 225, 227, 233
Foreign Language (Classroom)
Anxiety, 47, 50, 106 journals, 17, 28, 39, 181, 183, 237
see also anxiety, language anxiety
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety L2 motivational self system, 14, 65
Scale (FLCAS), 105 L2 self-confidence, 121, 123
frame of reference, 13, 18, 20 Language Achievement Attribution
Scale (LAAS), 97

gender differences, 93 language anxiety, 7, 103, 104–6, 108
goals, 3, 10, 19, 60, 62, 63, 74, 76, 78, language learner/learning strategies,
98, 122, 170, 172, 189, 193–4, 136, 138, 142, 143
197, 199, 203, 204, 205, 208, see also language use strategies;
222, 247 strategies
goal orientations, goal orientation language skills, 12, 174, 181
theory, 8, 76, 188–90, 193, language tasks, 12, 143
195–6, 198–9 language use strategies, 138–9, 171, 193
goal-setting, 47, 60, 207, 210, 216, see also language learner/learning
240, 246 strategies, strategies
grounded theory, 17, 81, 96, 143 lay theories, 75
group dynamics, 8, 220, 222, 223, learned helplessness, 94
227, 231, 246 learner autonomy, 8, 203–6, 210, 211,
214, 216
ideal L2 self, 65, 73 see also autonomy
identified regulation, 192 learner beliefs, 78, 85, 172, 180
identity, 11, 26, 27–31, 37, 38, 134, learning styles, learning style
192, 223, 241 preferences, 7, 136, 142–3, 145,
identity negotiation, 6, 27, 29, 31, 151–4, 156, 158–9, 160, 163–5
32, 38 legitimacy, 31, 37–8
immigrant, 27, 28, 30, 48, 53, 131 Likert scale, 98, 106, 160, 195, 209, 227
implicit theories, 74, 75–6, 78–9 linguistic coding, 106
entity theory, 75 locus of control, 91
incremental theory, 75
see also mindsets malleability, 74, 83, 84
incremental view of intelligence, 97 metacognition, 169–74
independent variable, 42, 54 mindsets, 7, 74–80, 82, 83, 84–5, 240
see also dependent variable fixed mindset, 75–7, 79–81
instrumental orientation, growth mindset, 75–7, 79
instrumental motivation, 59, 62, see also implicit theories
65, 189, 191, 196 monitoring, 48, 137, 141, 170, 174
integrated regulation, 191–2 motivation, 3, 6, 10, 15, 19, 22, 27,
integrative motivation, 47, 58–70, 76, 90, 94–5, 111, 120,
integrativeness, integrative 121, 122, 136, 142–6, 154, 172,
orientation, 3, 59–60, 61, 62, 65, 175, 188–92, 205, 240
123, 189–90, 192, 195–7 extrinsic motivation, 62, 191
interview, interview methods, 17, 68, intrinsic motivation, 189, 191–3,
69, 70, 80, 107–8, 159, 175–7, 197, 201–2
209, 210, 211–12, 213, 243 see also instrumental motivation,
intrinsic-stimulation, 192 integrative motivation
264 Subject Index
motivational teaching practice, 172 Rasch model, 124

Motivational Temperature remembering self, 112
Measure, 142 see also experiencing self, self
multicompetence, 53 responsibility, 125, 132, 205
multilingual, multilingualism, 6, 21, risk-taking, 48, 126
26–7, 31–2, 53–4, 147 role-play, 79, 104, 124
multimodal analysis, 68
multiple goals, 189, 194, 196, 202 second language acquisition (SLA), 3,
musicality, 51–2 14, 15, 26, 42–4, 51–2, 103, 221–2

self, 8, 10–11, 13, 19, 64, 65–7, 75, 91,
need for achievement, 60, 62 172
neuroticism, 44, 46, 51 self-assessment, 171, 174, 176–7,
180–3
openness-to-experience, 47–8 self-beliefs, 11, 13, 15, 49
ought-to L2 self, 65 self-concept, 10–22, 64–5, 69, 74,
132, 242, 246
participation, 31, 34, 36, 225, 230, self-corrections, 107
231, 232 self-determination,
perceived competence, 13, 94, 105, 123 self-determination theory
perception, 52, 62, 68, 69, 121, 141, (SDT), 64, 188–9, 191, 198
210, 227–9 self-efficacy, 4, 11, 14, 15, 49–50, 76,
perfectionism, perfectionist, 18, 51, 106 98–9, 105, 132, 175, 240
performance approach, 196 self-management, 205
performance avoid, 196–7 self-perceptions, 50, 61, 63, 64, 105
performance goals, 76, 189, 193, 194, self-regulation, self-regulatory, 64,
199 77, 138, 206–7, 210
see also task goals see also experiencing self,
personality, 4, 6, 26, 42–5, 52–4, 77, remembering self
83, 120–2, 124, 126, 153, 158, 240 social comparison, 13
person-in-context, 222, 232 social turn, 221–2, 226
person variables, 170 sociocultural, 13, 27, 31, 127, 132,
positionality, 26, 31 220, 222, 237
positive psychology, 113, 115 sociocultural theory, 221
possible selves, 15, 64, 65, 68, 70, socio-educational model of second
227–30 language acquisition/motivation,
power relations, 28, 30, 131 188–9
process orientation, 108 stability dimension, 91
stimulated recall, 68–9
Q methodology, 8, 210, 212 strategies, 3–4, 14, 29, 32, 33, 37, 92,
qualitative data, qualitative research, 93, 98, 136–47, 152, 163, 170–1,
qualitative research methods, 68, 173–5, 184, 207, 240
84, 96–7, 108, 125, 131, 160, 162, affective strategies, 141
164, 193, 210, 213 cognitive strategies, 141
quantitative data, quantitative communication strategies, 139, 174
methods, quantitative research, coping strategies, 139
15, 67, 96, 107, 110, 122, 125, learning strategies, 3, 7, 152, 158,
143, 188, 233 174, 194, 203, 204, 216, 233
questionnaires, 15, 44, 46, 52, 79–80, metacognitive strategies, 7, 47, 141,
108, 125, 159–61, 209, 243 148, 169, 171
Subject Index 265
rehearsal strategies, 139 tests, 46, 50, 97–8, 108, 173, 176, 177,
retrieval strategies, 139 180–1
social strategies, 46, 141, 145 test anxiety, 105
see also language learner/learning see also anxiety, language anxiety
strategies, language use thinking, 46, 172, 175, 181, 207, 233,
strategies 246
trait emotional intelligence, 51
task goals, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197–8,
199 vibes, 111–12

task variables, 170
teachers, 45, 48, 70, 112, 163–4, 172, willingness to communicate (WTC),
175, 181–2, 225, 232, 246 14, 105, 108–10, 119–32, 242

Psychology For Language Learner - Mercer Et Al - 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology For Language Learner - Mercer Et Al - 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.

com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

10.1057/9781137032829 - Psychology for Language Learning, Edited by Sarah Mercer, Stephen

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF LANGUAGE LEARNER SELF-CONCEPT

Also by Marion Williams

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

List of Figures and Tables ix

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Notes on Contributors xii

2 Self-concept: Situating the Self 10

3 Identity: The Situated Construction of Identity and

4 Personality: Personality Traits as Independent and

5 Motivation: L2 Learning as a Special Case? 58

6 Implicit Theories: Language Learning Mindsets 74

7 Attribution: Looking Back and Ahead at the ‘Why’ Theory 90

8 Affect: The Role of Language Anxiety and Other Emotions

9 Willingness to Communicate: Momentary Volition that

10 Strategies: The Interface of Styles, Strategies, and

11 Learning Styles: Traversing the Quagmire 151

12 Metacognition: Awareness of Language Learning 169

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

14 Self-directed Learning: Concepts, Practice, and a Novel

15 Group Dynamics: Collaborative Agency in Present

16 Conclusion: Final Remarks 239

Author Index 256

Subject Index 262

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

12.1 Self-assessment instructions for the oral interview 177

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

psychological constructs typically addressed by educational psychology,

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Andrew D. Cohen is a professor in phased retirement in the Program

Lucy Cooker teaches at the University of Nottingham, UK. Her research

Jean-Marc Dewaele is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Multilin-

Joseph Falout is an assistant professor at Nihon University, Japan. His

Yoshifumi Fukada teaches at the International Christian University,

Tetsuya Fukuda is a professor at Yamano College, Japan. He is inter-

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Tammy Gregersen is Professor of TESOL at the University of Northern

Carol Griffiths is currently working as a teacher trainer at Yeditepe Uni-

Pei-Hsuan (Peggy) Hsieh is an education specialist at the Univer-

Peter MacIntyre is Professor of Psychology at Cape Breton University,

Sarah Mercer is a lecturer at the University of Graz, Austria. Her research

the author of the book Towards an understanding of language learner

Naoko Morita is a lecturer at Simon Fraser University, Canada. Her

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Richard Pemberton was an associate professor in the School of Educa-

Stephen Ryan is a professor in the School of Economics at Senshu

Ema Ushioda is Associate Professor in ELT and Applied Linguistics

Marion Williams was formerly Reader in Applied Linguistics at the

Lindy Woodrow is Senior Lecturer in TESOL at the University of

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Tomoko Yashima is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Intercultural

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2012-07-31

This book aims to provide an overview of current theory and research

Why we compiled this book